ADOPTION – LEGALISED VERSION OF CHILD TRAFFICKING

the-rich-do-not-relinquish-300x294

As Matthew Hill, BBC West Health Correspondent recently asked (bbc.co.uk, 22 December 2015), ‘how much could English councils save if they followed the example of Scotland and avoided using private (foster) agencies? Some estimates calculate around £400 per child per week, but it’s near impossible to say as back office support is not fully costed.

But one thing is for certain, huge profits are being made. Figures released by Corporate Watch show the top eight private foster agencies in England and Wales had a turnover of £413m last year, attracting investment from across the world. Some of their directors are paid hundreds of thousands of pounds.

We tread the American path of a legalized version of child trafficking, which rakes in over $15 billion in profit a year. This is big business. Its purveyors search for working-class prey like carrion crow.

I wrote some time ago that the American child protection-for-profit system is a paradise for profiteers. ‘Parents are ordered to attend parenting classes, anger management classes, counseling classes, therapy classes, etc., sometimes having to pay for these, and on completion, which may take years, they may have their children returned. Private companies in the child protection business employ psychologists, psychiatrists, counselors, caseworkers, and therapists; others are involved in sourcing foster and adoptive parents.The system is a gigantic pig trough of competing snouts. The bonus for an adoption placement can be between $4,000-$6,000, more if the child has ‘special needs’.

State Departments of Human Resources (DHR’s) and private affiliates work on a baseline number of expected adoptions based on population. Each bonus is multiplied by the percentage that the State has managed to exceed its baseline adoption number. Thus, there is monetary incentive for increased numbers of adoptions. Extra funds are paid when a child is placed in a mental health facility.

Adoptive parents receive cash subsidies until the child is 18, which continue if the child goes to college, ranging from $410-$486 per month per child. They also receive Medicaid for the child, a clothing allowance, and adoption costs, including legal fees. The same child’s mother may have been on a welfare program, before losing her children, in which she would have proven she had no assets in order to collect $539 per month for herself and two children. This begs the question: why isn’t the same level of support given to the children’s parents in the first place? It may be added that the ‘welfare scrounger’ who loses her children is tested for various addictions, but, oh surprise, surprise!, those adopting her children are not!

The reality is that states, counties, and contracted private blood-sucking companies receive $30,000 for each child removed from their home and put into adoption. Those funds go up to between $40,000 and $150,000 if the child has special needs. Who is making a sick profit?

Children to adopt in America can be browsed on adoption sites, or viewed at ‘Adoption Fairs’. The latter are called ‘adoption parties’ in the UK, where up to 50 children meet with as many as 30 adoptive parents. Not much fun if you keep going to the party and never get picked, a bit like ‘plain Jane’ who was never asked to dance.

An article in prwatch.org in 2013 quoted The Denver Post, which ‘found a shocking pattern of abuse when it conducted an in-depth investigation of the privatization of Colorado’s foster care system a decade ago. The Post reported that numerous children were molested, abused, and even died in foster homes after the state started contracting with businesses that failed to ensure they were placed in safe homes. The state also paid three times as much to place a child in private foster care as it did in homes that were supervised by the counties’. The article quotes Bob Jacobson of the Wisconsin Council on Children and Families: “If you’re a corporation whose very mission is to increase shareholder value that is automatically in conflict with a social service agency whose sole purpose is to meet the needs of people in the program.” It also quotes In the Public Interest, a privatisation watchdog: “Numerous state and local governmental entities are finding that turning over these programs to private contractors not only fails to achieve projected cost savings but also decreases access to these important services …’.

Far more tellingly than anything I could ever write, Claudia Corrigan D’Arcy gives an insight into the human cost of this legalized version of child trafficking, and the myriad ancillary industries that feed from its trough of working-class children, which is forever being topped up with new flesh. She quotes an adoption agency director: “Options look very different to expectant moms with bank accounts, vehicles, degrees and health insurance than they appear to moms in projects with food stamps, GEDs, bus passes and Medicaid.” (In the same way, options look very different for the rich nursing home resident as they do for poorer ones).

Claudia Corrigan D’Arcy (March 2, 2014) gives an insight into what is now being rolled out in the UK, which is nothing more than the capitalist scum which have risen to the top our our society enabling its carrion-crow-class subsiduaries to bring working-class children to market, rather like a Roman slave market. The Roman jurist Gaius wrote: ‘Slavery is a human invention and not found in nature. Indeed, it was that other human invention, war, which provided the bulk of slaves, but they were also the bounty of piracy’, which may be paraphrased: ‘Child adoption for profit is a human invention and not found in nature. Indeed, it is that other human invention, working-class poverty, which provides the bulk of trafficked children, which makes them the bounty of piracy’.

Claudia Corrigan D’Arcy wrote about the devious marketing methods used by the carrion-crow-class of child traffickers: ‘As it has been said so long in the adoption truth community, many birthmothers attest that they did not want to make an adoption plan for their children. Proving that there is little or no choice in the process is much easier for moms during the Baby Scoop Era as the threats of forced adoption are well documented now and accepted by many more in society. But still, we fight the adoption industry marketing messages that birthmothers “these days” face a different face of adoption. These mothers “choose” to “make an adoption plan” for their children because they “love the so much and want them to have a better life”; leading into the heroic sainthood of birthmotherness especially in terms of open adoptions.

Of course, the counterattack of reality is that the adoption industry does target pregnant women at risk and then leads them down the primrose path of adoption glory. Whether it is outright coercion, or the eroding of her rights, or the creation of the adoption storyline, or the lies and false promises of a truly open adoption, or birthmother gaslighting, or biased adoption counseling , or withholding of the needed information that is required to allow a mother to make an “informed choice”; in the end, a vast majority of moms I have known over the years do attest that “choice” is only a word thrown around most haphazardly and does not adequately define her relinquishment experience. The word “choice” must mean that a mother has another option besides adoption.

Is there truly a choice to be a mother is a woman is facing the reality of homelessness with her baby? Is there much of a choice in “wanting to be a mother” if the economics of diaper buying is a tremendous obstacle? Is there really a choice if she is attending college and her grants and scholarships that she lives on are contingent on her maintaining a 3.2 GPA and missing classes or even a semester after birth is an impossibility? Is there a choice if her parents tell her not to “come home with that baby” or if she must work two jobs to support the child she does has. Is there choice when she is denied insurance and even the cost of the hospital for birth is insurmountable?

Now those invested in adoption will say that these mothers are choosing a “loving option if you are not prepared to parent your child” . Few adoption agency websites seem to delve deeper into the WHY a mother might not “be prepared” while cautioning all the ways that parenting is “big responsibility. It takes time, money, maturity and sacrifice.” While almost every adoption agency website around make huge points that being a birthmother is “free” and offer the perks of housing, medical care, counseling and legal services, few seem to actually see to come right out and say “you can’t afford to have a child.” Instead of pointing out what an expectant mother is lacking, they are all too keen to point out all the ways that their adoptive parents are bountiful in monetary and material means’.

(See http://www.adoptionbirthmothers.com/the-rich-do-not-relinquish-children-to-adoption).

Is there any lower depths that America and its satelite copyists will sink to? Their sated masses spend billions on Christmas bingeing, as the society they leave their children sinks into a Darwinian cess pit.

All empires that gorge themselves on the misery of others eventually perish, and deserve to perish.
lenin nightingale 2015

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “ADOPTION – LEGALISED VERSION OF CHILD TRAFFICKING

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s