Symposium on Ethics and Adoption: Challenges for Today and the Future
November 3-5, 1999
Anaheim, CA
Sponsored by the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute

Denise's Report from Day One of the Symposium:

On Tuesday morning after voting in our rather contentious local elections, Ron and I hit the road from San Francisco to Anaheim for the Evan B. Donaldson conference. The theme for the conference was quite honestly stated as Ethics and Adoption, rather than Ethics in Adoption. What whet my curiousity for the conference was one session called, "Do Adoptees Have "Rights"?" The name of that session inspired some Bastards to recall the question of the 1300's, "Do Women have Souls?"

The trip took 8 hours, and we were greeted by one of BN's finest, Charles Filius, who by the way was the most gracious host. Charles generously slept on the floor so Ron and I could have a place to sleep for almost an entire week. I would like to express how much Ron and I appreciated him opening up his home to us.

On Wednesday, Ron and I got there early to survey the scene at the conference. The Hyatt was a beautifully appointed high-rise hotel just blocks away from Disneyland. The opening session included the following:

- Madelyn Freundlich from the Evan B. Donaldson Institute, who was the organizer of the event.
- Graham Wright of the California Association of Adoption Agencies
- Stuart Oppenheim from the California Welfare Directors Association
- Zena Ogelsby, Jr. from the Institute of Black Parenting

One of the major themes of this panel is the concern that there is a growing trend towards commercialization and amateurization of adoption. The growing commercialization is leading the adoption industry to turn children into commodities. Amateurization is increasingly allowing individuals and businesses that have no experience in social work to make placements in adoption. They also pointed out that the greatest change of demographics in adoption was in foster care adoptions. 80% of public agency placements for adoption in California are foster children.

The first keynote speaker was George J. Annas, J.D.,M.P.H on the topic, "Ethics in a World Ruled by Law and the Market: Adoption, Assisted Reproduction and Parenthood." This rather entertaining speaker is the Professor and Chair of Health Law Department of the Boston University School of Public Health. His presentation pointed out how the new reproductive technologies pose legal and ethical problems. Reproductive technologies present a challenge in defining parentage. Is it the donor whose genetic code is carried? Is it the gestational or natural mother who carries the child to term? Is it the parents who contract for the creation of the child to parent? Contract law determines parentage as whoever the contract wants to be the true parent. He also questions the wisdom of assisting pregnancy using the genetic material of infertile couples since the trait for male infertility has be proven to be hereditary and produces infertile children.

Annas explored the use of DNA and manipulation of DNA. He makes the distinction between creating healthy babies and creating "enhanced" children. In using such technologies, he suggests the Precautionary Principle where the burden is on the industry to demonstrate overwhelming benefit. Where the benefit of treating diseases through DNA therapy can demonstrate that benefit, creating "enhanced" children (ie. eye color, skin color, hair color, beauty, intelligence, etc.) doesn't quite meet the burden of the Precautionary principle in his estimation. Annas talks about other uses of DNA such as in the identification of newborns to prevent baby switching. He questions the calls for DNA registries instead of open records for adult adoptees because of definite privacy concerns of handing over our personal DNA code to anyone. Annas urges that we take the new genetics seriously by passing laws that prohibit the sale of eggs, sperm, and genetic material.

Overall, Annas' keynote speech was sympathetic to our cause, recognizing the human right to one's own unique genetic identity and it recognized that there is no need for secrecy regarding genetic ties and information. In talking with Kees Sprenger about this (an adoptive father/adoption reform activist from New Zealand) it was brought up that perhaps what is needed is an expanded birth certificate that includes donor, natural, and legal parents. I found this topic interesting for BN because it does bring up the next generation of children born from adopted genetic material, or what we fondly call "Baster Nation". The fight for the right for our own vital information is not only important for ourselves but can lay ground work for those who will have vital information issues as well down the line.

The next keynote speaker was H. David Kirk, Ph.D from the University of Waterloo, Canada. He is an adoptive father and author of the "Shared Fate" theory in adoption. His presentation was called, "Adoption as Social Institution: A Matrix of Ethical Dilemmas". Without reading his books, from his presentation I gathered it involved interpersonal relationships between adoptive parents and their unrelated children.

Kirk begins by showing Picasso's painting "La Vie" (see right) and says that this painting was very important to him when thinking of adoption issues. Then he launches into the story of how his adopted daughter, at the age of five, had to draw church steeples or windows for a kindergarten project. His daughter drew a picture of a decapitated steeple. Her original picture is since lost, but Kirk provides a rendition of the church window from his memory of it. Later he had asked his daughter to reproduce the window she drew years ago and it was different than the one in Kirk's memory. According to Kirk this drawing was the daughter's way to process the newfound knowledge she was adopted.

Kirk discussed the open records reform movement and claimed that its civil rights arguments for access are not working. He then lamented that his personal theory has not been used to open records. He cites as example an instance in recent efforts in New Jersey to open records. He was asked to write a letter and did, but learned later that the movement leaders had not used his arguments. His argument, it seems, is that there is a basic error in adoption law that defines adoptive kinship as the same as kinship by birth. He posits that birth records were sealed to sustain the myth of adoptive kinship as the equivalent of biological kin. He states that a realistic definition of adoptive kinship will make sealed records laws unnecessary.

Then he describes the how Nazis used adoption to take Aryan-like children from Polish, Czech, and French families and placed them with Nazi families. In this case, adoption was made to be tool of the "master race" policy.

In conclusion, Kirk states:

"In declaring adoptive kinship legally the equivelent of kinship by birth, our law has done its work both well and not so well. In protecting the child's material interests, the law has done well. For the parent-child relationship, which depends to large extent on the wisdom of parents, it has done less well. The law's definition invites adopters to see themselves as quasi-natural parents. But, if they follow the mental health prescription to "tell the child" they place the child in the position of quasi-immigrant."

While it seems that he isn't speaking against adoptee rights to information, Kirk seems to think that openness in other areas in adoption threaten the efforts of Kirk and others to integrate the adoptive family. He questions the term "birth family" as something that challenges adoptive family attachment.

I have to admit that I was not quite sure what his conclusion was at the end of the presentation. I fortunately got the full text of the presentation to chew on later.

The last panel was a panel of Annette Baran, Reuben Pannor, Joyce Pavao, Susan Cox, and Dr.Joseph Crumbley. There was some stinging comment on the institution of adoption mixed with feel-good platitudes and calls for empathy.

The themes this panel brought up are the erosion of good practice in adoption, and that bad practice is institutionalized and exported to other countries. Public adoption agencies are being co-opted by private agencies in what is called collaborative adoptions. It is a materialistic generation of adoptions.

When you look at where white infants come from these days they are not mostly from teenagers, but rather 60% are from married couples with 3-6 children. These birthparents come from poverty belts which overlap with the bible belt. Many of those families are employed but still living in poverty.

Joyce Pavao asked the audience to imagine what is like to be an adoptee in the infant adoption generation. Susan Cox gave a talk about International Adoption and how wonderful it is as long as it is ethical. She relates a story of a 17 year old Romanian boy who wished he could be adopted and be taught how to kiss.

At this point it was time to disengage from adoption issues for the day. We stuck around for the Welcoming Reception, but eventually we just had to let go and meet up with Charles.

Day One had its highlights, but most of the day was just surreal. I liked how Ron described feeling like a weiner at a Hormel Conference. This conference was attended primarily by social workers with a smattering of adoption authors, academics, counselors and stealthy adoption lawyers.

Damsel's Report:

Ron Morgan, Denise Castellucci and I spent a week down in Anaheim, California at the Evan B. Donaldson symposium on Ethics AND Adoption (as opposed to Ethics *in* Adoption.) As I was sorely dreading it, I had only planned on attending the one day in which we were exhibiting, but my morbid curiosity got the better of me and I ended up attending the entire conference, barring the second half of the last morning.

What struck me most about the conference was the tension between the various special-interest groups, many concerned with protecting their own reputations, and most importantly, their own rice bowls. Attorneys involved in private adoptions, agency social workers working under the-more-you-place, the-more-you make incentive programs, private social workers confused about whether they represent the adoptive parent or the birthmother, therapists concerned that everyone be sure to get adoption therapy, and a handful of birthmother, adoptive parent and adoptee-rights advocates.

The opening talks were by bioethicist George Annas and sociologist/adoptive father H. David Kirk. Annas knows a lot more about reproductive tech. than about adoption, but seemed a likely ally given his general opposition to secrecy in reproductive technology. Kirk came up to the BN table during our exhibit and said he strongly supported our cause but opposed any birthmother access. I didn't have a chance to bring up the Late-Discovery Adoptee argument, but given his concern with adoptive family "hegemony" I don't know that it would change his anti-birthmother stance much.

The panel on "key ethical issues" in adoption was moderated by Annette Baran and included her colleague, veteran adoption reformer/MSW Reuben Pannor, adoptee/therapist Joyce Maguire Pavao, international transracial adoptee/Holt Agency Spokes-honcho Susan Soon-Keum Cox, and foster care reformer/MSW Joseph Crumbley. Adult adoptee access to obcs was not discussed. Pannor spoke out against private adoptions which have gone so far as to mine poverty-Bible belts for white, potentially adoptable infants. A rather shocking figure thrown out was that over 60% of the HWIs (healthy white infants) procured domestically are now from poverty-stricken families with 3-6 children already.

Susan Cox gave a staunch and at times sentimental portrait of the work being done in International Adoption, including mention of her recent trips to the Hague and Moldova in conjunction with UNICEF projects. In response to this there was expressed the objection to people going abroad to adopt when there are so many children awaiting permanent homes in the U.S. There were serious objections from the attorneys and private social workers in the audience who claimed that the panel was impugning their "good work" and figures tossed out regarding "special needs" or "waiting" children in the US were disputed. Pannor claimed that the number is close to a million. People in the audience claimed that if those awaiting intra-family adoption, imminent reunification and those aging out of foster care were excluded, the number is closer to 250,000. It was one of many areas of contention at the conference.

Another general panel was on the "impact of adoption on members of the triad" and included MSW/Open Adoption advocate Sharon Kaplan-Roszia, adoptee/author/therapist Betty Jean Lifton, and UAA Secretary/adoption law specialist Joan Hollinger, Esq. Kaplan-Roszia quoted extensively from L. Anne Babb's book on Ethics in American Adoption and advocated true open adoption motivated by compassion rather than initially identified adoption which devolves into aparents or bparents running away. BJ Lifton said we all need good therapy. Hollinger, who had buttonholed me in the ladies' room earlier that day to badmouth the Hague Convention (no surprise, since it would hand control of international adoption over to a handful of agencies like Holt), came out with an appalling load of offensive anti-adoptee double-talk. As a matter of fact, I'd call her the ultimate double-standard-bearer of adoption law. She started her talk by claiming that the main argument adult adoptees use to advance the cause of equal access to obcs is "We didn't choose this." She belittles this misrepresentation of the "main argument for open records" by flippantly retorting "Did I ask to be born into a family of neurotic East European Jews?" Then she spoke on how lucky adoptees are to have an adoptive home: the familiar "be glad you were diapered and fed - now shut up!" argument. From there it slid downhill into a smiley-faced song and dance about how we need less rather than more accountability and regulation in adoption: a fairly predictable plea for the free-range attorney specializing in private adoptions. Her final statement conflated open adoption with foster care/guardianship, eerily reminiscent of Bill Pierce's rhetoric. The following day when Ms. Hollinger came up to the BN exhibit table I frankly but pleasantly voiced my misgivings about her talk. She attempted to backpedal furiously, stammering "that's not what I meant, that's not what I meant" but clearly having no coherent response to "What did you mean then?" It was a somewhat bewildering lesson in the potentially boundless audacity of people who seek influence at any cost.

The workshop for facilitators and lawyers dealt mostly with the ethical problem of "dual representation," when an attorney or social worker represents and counsels both adoptive parents and the birthmother. This practice is illegal in some states (such as California), but the law includes the gaping loophole of dual representation being illegal "unless both sides agree to it." It was clear to me by the end of this workshop that it should be altogether illegal with no loopholes. The workshop also included some ugly attorney vs. agency bickering which was enlightening. Adoptee/adoptive mom/adoption attorney Amy Silberberg of AFA made the telling remark that anyone claiming to advocate for the rights of the unborn child (the unborn child as client) was simply lying to himself. She claimed that the "best interests of the unborn child" standard was a social work feel-good fallacy which actually distracts from the reality that one cannot ethically advocate on behalf of both potential adoptive parents and potential birthmother, since they may end up in an adversarial relationship and the aparents are always the ones paying the bill. The cynical New Yorker in me tended to agree.

A personal highlight of the exhibit was that my social worker from Spence-Chapin came up to the Bastard Nation table to chat. (Gosh, she must have been proud! :) Actually, she's a nice lady, and certainly the nicest of the SWs I encountered over the years when contacting Spence.

The exhibit part of the conference featured at least 4 online adoption placement services, one so bold as to call itself "Virtual Babies." There was a very touching art exhibit by adopted kids, and I had to admit I even got teary-eyed looking at it. It is great that some adoptee-kids these days get to hang out with other adoptees. I know many, if not most of us grew up never knowing another adopted person - and it was lonely sometimes. In any case, CUB (Concerned United Birthparents) were there, Antioch University's Adoption Therapy program, some foster care advocates, several outfits specializing in online placement services, a Russian orphanage art exhibit, and Bastard Nation. You can read about the conference's offerings and order audio tapes from the link at http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/proed/confinfo.html.

The symposium was a great opportunity to personally encounter a wide range of folks from the adoption industry. There were a good many people who didn't come close to the Bastard Nation table but others tried to diplomatically or even constructively engage us. I visited every booth at the exhibit and introduced myself, handed out sample issues of the Bastard Quarterly and BN pamphlets to those receptive, and simply took information from all those who had it to give. The symposium's organizers at Evan B. Donaldson, Madelyn Freundlich and her charming crew of support personnel, made the symposium an overall successful first step in opening the lines of communication and putting out some issues that need to be clarified in the area of adoption practice, if it is to be done in an ethical manner.

After attending this symposium, I am more sure than ever that we are a long way off from achieving this goal. Equal rights for adult adoptees and an end to permanent state-sanctioned shame in adoption would be a great place to start though. Hopefully, more constructive engagement and tougher stands by motivated activists from all corners of the adoption experience will move us towards a better practice of adoption in the future. If adoption attorneys and lobbyists representing insecure adoptive parents are the only ones out there lobbying, don't expect much progress soon.

Get involved. Write your legislators. Write your local newspapers. It's going to take a critical mass of real people like us to change the laws.

* * *

Denise Castellucci is BN's Technology Chair and the founder of Voices of Adoption, the original Internet adoption resource. Damsel Plum is co-founder and Publications Chair of Bastard Nation.

(This feature appeared in the Winter 99/00 issue of the Bastard Quarterly.)

Copyright 1999 Bastard Nation
All Rights Reserved