Fly Away Children, Broadcast: 09/15/2009

In Australia, due to the country’s history pertaining to adoption (which is well beyond the scope of this tiny post, but by way of one starting place, you can read about the Parliamentary Inquiry and Australia’s Origins work here,)  inter-country adoptions are run solely by the government instead by private agencies as they are here in the United States.

Yet clearly, that supposed ’safeguard’ built into the Australian system has failed to prevent precisely the sorts of child-trafficking so common to inter-country adoptions.

Instead of providing any form of a ’safeguard’, the ABC has obtained a document in which:

A parent of an adopted child implicates Australia’s representative in Ethiopia in the child trafficking racket.

Which is to say that rather than thwarting the system of bribes and lies, it appears Australia’s representative simply moved right into the vacuum or niche in the adoption ecosystem left when no private agencies are able to work there.

As a result of the broadcast, yet more families have come forward to share their stories, and so earlier this month, the ABC ran a follow up piece which I feel is in some ways stronger than the initial report:

Fly Away Home Broadcast: 03/02/2010

Both video segments are rooted in a consumer protection model focusing on the ‘wronged’ adopters, who are dismayed that the children they adopted were not as advertised. Though both segments also go well beyond such, by spending some time on both the Ethiopian mothers and the voices of some of the Ethiopian kids, and thus touching on the human/identity/heritage/cultural rights aspects of these abuses.

For example, viewers once again hear the all too familiar refrain of how the “adoptee” was told they would be going to the United States by way of an educational opportunity, that they could go home to see their families, etc.

Naturally, once they arrive here in the states, they find themselves in a completely different situation, that of now being expected to live up to the role of, as well as legally now the new child to the the family that purchased them, unable to return to their country of origin until after they reach the magic age of 18.

Both programes offer up the Hague Convention on Inter-country Adoption as if it were some form of solution to adoption corruption when clearly, it is by its very nature, not.

The ABC has also done a number of pieces, such as this, “Adoption Special,”  Australians caught in Ethiopian adoption nightmare, added today.  Be certain to explore the sidebars and supporting documents, such as this letter from Against Child Trafficking (ACT) which was accompanied by ACT’s collected evidence.

This is all set against the backdrop of Australia’s Ethiopia adoption ban having just been lifted:

The Attorney-General’s Office said the program would resume on April 6, 2010.

To the ABC’s credit, they are doing a genuine service by raising the issues involved, providing a broader microphone and audience to voices almost never heard, and doing real educational work before the new adoptions start up again. This is a crucial period in which opposition must be heard.

The decision to reopen Ethiopian adoptions is not grounded in evidence of the situation improving, nor of the human rights situation actually changing, if anything, the gold rush mentality is on in Ethiopia, just as it has been in country after country.

Take the American inter-country adoption suspensions track record for example:

Americans rushed in to grab whatever kids they could in Romania until adoptions were suspended in June 2001.

Next to suspend was  Cambodia in December 2001.

Then Georgia, in August 2003.

Followed by Azerbaijan in May 2004.

Belarus suspended in October 2004.

Then Guatemala, December 2007.

Next came Vietnam, September 2008.

and more recently, Kyrgyzstan, September 2008.

Haiti suspended all but adoptions already in process (although there are questions about how thorough that suspension is in practice at the moment) back in late January.

At the beginning of March, Swaziland just suspended all U.S. adoptions, pending an investigation by the Department of Social Welfare reviewing its adoption procedures. No date has been set for completion of the review. In the mean time, only adoptions already underway are being completed.

You would think certain lessons might be learned from that litany of suspensions, but nope. When a country like Guatemala closes, hotels near the airport in Ethiopia begin filling up with would-be-adopters in the next destination du jour.

Those of you who have been following along on my twitter, have likely seen a number of articles I’ve been pulling relating to the Ethiopian mess, such as this misnamed piece, Adoption watchdog suppresses Ethiopia findings.  Horribly misnamed, in that the Joint Council of International Children’s Services, or JCICS is anything but a “watchdog” group, it is an adoption industry trade lobby.

Core to it’s very function is to fight off industry regulation by falsely positioning itself as an advocate working on behalf of children. The industry cannot, by definition, “watchdog” itself.

As I mentioned on my Twitter, how bad has it gotten? Apparently bad enough for the industry trade lobby to suppress its own report on how bad its gotten.

The Joint Council of International Children’s Services (JCICS) says it has completed its probe, but to release its conclusions would not be “appropriate”.

In”appropriate” only in that releasing said findings might just mean a one one ticket to having to find themselves new jobs.

Well that, and for what their own report might reveal concerning Christian World Adoption and former JCICS President Tomilee Harding.

Prominent adoption reform advocate Maureen Flatley claims JCICS is stacked with adoption agency figures and does a poor job of self-regulating.

“We’ve really let the fox guard the henhouse,” she said.

“They are the ‘big tobacco’ of adoption. They are a trade association that nominally espouses the highest standards but which is harbouring the very people who have been involved in some of the biggest abuses in adoption – and they haven’t laid a hand on them.

“The JCICS has one goal and one goal only, and that is to avoid federal regulation of adoption.

All of this is the big picture.

But at the end of the day, what the international community should be listening to are the voices of the mothers, the families, and those subjected to these adoptions themselves, particularly those few old enough to speak out on their own behalf:

Tonight Foreign Correspondent exposes more cases, including that of Journee Bradshaw, who claims CWA told her she was heading off on a study trip to the US, only to learn after her arrival that she would not be returning to Ethiopia.

“I didn’t know that I’m going to stay here,” she said.

“They never told me that I’m going to have a family I’m going to stay with and I’m supposed to be their daughter. They never told me that. I just find out when I got here.”

(Photo courtesy of the Nebraska Unicameral Information Office)

This is the latest in a series of posts I have done criticizing Nebraska’s legalized child abandonment laws. You can find my earlier posts via my Nebraska tag.

***

Nebraska has an incredible State Capitol, it’s a shame to see it used as the venue where the Nebraska Governor and Legislature are abandoning some of the state’s most needy kids.

Regular readers know, I oppose all legalized child abandonment laws, so while I’m going to detail the latest machinations relating to the ‘new and improved’ dump bills (what I’ve dubbed dump law 2.0) the bottom line remains, if any of these bills succeed, Nebraska will continue to fail those most vulnerable and least able to defend their own rights.

Today Nebraska’s Attorney General weighed in on the likely constitutionality (or lack thereof) regarding LB 3 (Annette Dubas’ two tier bill.)

Via Monday’s Nebraska Legislative Journal (link opens a PDF) we get the details on the Attorney General’s opinion on:

Whether LB 3 is within the scope of the Governor’s call for a special session of the Legislature relating to child abandonment.

Again, we’re deep down in the technical issues of what can and cannot be done within the scope of the special session itself. Back on November 14th (Friday) when LB 3 was introduced, Speaker Michael Flood requested an opinion from the Attorney General on LB 3.

The One-Hundredth Nebraska Legislature began its First Special Session on November 14, 2008. That special session was convened pursuant to a 44 LEGISLATIVE JOURNAL Proclamation issued by the Governor on October 29, 2008, under authority of art. IV, § 8 of the Nebraska Constitution. The Governor’s Proclamation called the Legislature into special session “for the purpose of considering and enacting legislation on only” two subjects. Those subjects are:

1. Enacting legislation to limit the application of 2008 Neb. Laws LB 157, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-121, by reducing the maximum age of children to whom the statute applies; and

2. To appropriate funds to the Legislative Council for the necessary expenses of the extraordinary session herein called.

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-121, the statute specifically addressed in the Governor’s proclamation, reads as follows:

No person shall be prosecuted for any crime based solely upon the act of leaving a child in the custody of an employee on duty at a hospital licensed by the State of Nebraska. The hospital shall promptly contact appropriate authorities to take custody of the child.

Your opinion request, which we received late in the afternoon on November 14, pertains to LB 3 from the First Special Session. You wish to know whether, in our view, LB 3 “is within the scope of the Governor’s call for a special session of the Legislature to enact legislation that limits the application of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-121?” For the reasons discussed below, we believe that it is not.

(Emphasis added.)

I’ll let readers go over the details of why via the Legislative Journal link if they are so inclined, suffice it to say, just as I predicted, to date the only real options the legislature has open to it is setting an age limit (again I advocate Zero point Zero, i.e. no kids at all) and how to pay for the special session.

Much of this opinion is based upon an earlier decision the Attorney General rendered:

This is the second opinion request which we have received regarding legislation proposed for the First Special Session and the scope of the Governor’s call. In our Op. Att’y Gen. No. 08008 (November 14, 2008), we indicated that legislation proposed by Senator Pahls was likely outside the scope of the Governor’s call for the special session.

Much of the first opinion is quoted in relation to LB 3 in the Legislative Journal piece. This paragraph summarizes:

It is well established that the legislature while in special session can transact no business except that for which it was called together. . . . The proclamation may state the purpose for which the Legislature is convened in broad, general terms or it may limit the consideration to a specified phase of a general subject. The Legislature is free to determine in what manner the purpose shall be accomplished, but it must confine itself to the matters submitted to it by the proclamation. . . .

Now how exactly the above relates to these three resolutions:

LR1 – Congratulate the Lindsay Holy Family High School Boys’ Cross Country Team for winning the Class D state championship

LR2 – Congratulate Thomas Wilson Hall for earning the rank of Eagle Scout

and

LR3 – Congratulate Matthew Willaert Wallen for earning the rank of Eagle Scout

is all just a bit beyond my legislative know-how, (but apparently when they’re not busy making yet still more of Nebraska’s abandoned kids they have to do something to fill the time and justify spending that $68,761.)

The Attorney General’s opinion also points out what he feels is beyond the constitutional scope of the special session, (speaking of the Governor):

He has not summoned the Legislature to consider and legislate with regard to other legal, medical or administrative ramifications that might flow from the relinquishment of a child at a licensed hospital or from the exemption from criminal prosecution itself.

and from further down:

…the supreme court’s restrictive view of what legislation is considered germane to a special session call does not allow the Legislature to consider bills which go beyond the specified phase of the Governor’s call and which deal in broad terms with child abandonment, the duties of governmental and private institutions, and the duties and rights of parents. Those additional legislative issues must wait, at this point, until the Legislature is assembled in its regular session.

Which has, just as I said, left their hands tied when it comes to offering any other form of concrete help to Nebraska’s kids and families.

The Nebraska Attorney General lays out very clearly, he believes LB 3:

…if enacted during the special session, is in violation of the Nebraska Constitution and void.

So where does this leave us?

Well for starters, with many hours of testimony that was heard Monday afternoon. (I’ll be working with that later on,) which was almost universally about at precisely what age Nebraska’s unequal treatment under law was going to kick in…2-3 days/that magic 72 hours? 30 days? A 2 month minimum? At 6-8 months? 1 year? 2 years?

As I’ve said before Zero point zero is the only way for Nebraska to ensure all kids receive “Equality Before the Law.” Anything else is an arbitrarily picked point in time that ensures a class of kids in Nebraska receive unequal treatment under Nebraska law.

Governor Heineman laid out his stance in a radio interview:

The governor said today that he’s flexible on an age limit and is willing to work with the legislature.

“Somewhere between 3 and 30 days is appropriate,” Heineman said on a statewide radio call-in show broadcast from KFOR in Lincoln.

So, again, where are we? For the moment anyway, stuck with LB 1, (the 72 hour bill) and the amendments that have been offered to date:

Sen. Bill Avery- AM 1- 1 year
Sen. Chris Langemeier- AM 2- 30 Days

Which is to say so far the legislators have accepted inequitable treatment, now they’re merely quibbling over the exact point that inequality will be applied.

We are still waiting for even one Nebraska legislator to step up and introduce a bill with an age cap set at zero point zero, a bill that would put a stop to the practice of child dumping in Nebraska.

The Attorney General’s opinion clearly leaves room for for a Zero point Zero bill:

Therefore, during the First Special Session, the Legislature may lower the maximum age of covered children to whatever age it chooses, or not at all.

(Emphasis added.)

In fact, given the current constraints of the special session, a Zero point Zero bill would be the ONLY means by which the legislature could effectively repeal the dump bill.

Unless and until that happens, we’re merely debating how many abandoned kids can dance on the head of that legalized dump pin.

A damn sad state of affairs, and one under which Nebraska’s kids will continue to lose.

***

All state enabled and encouraged legalized abandonment schemes fail kids.

Zero out the dump law.

***

I do not have time this morning to fully profile some of the out of state child dumping advocates working on the Nebraska situation, but I wanted to at least put forward at least a few details as we go into today’s public hearing.

Both of these profiles relate to dump law personalities who have worked nationally and claim to be currently working or have worked previously in Nebraska.

Mike and Jean Morrisey, Baby Safe Haven New England

While there is a great deal that could and eventually should be written about the Morriseys, I feel their actions and judgement should be carefully examined. Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

These are people who feel it’s appropriate to put sex quizzes such as “How sexual are you?, Compare yourself to Baby Safe Haven New England” on the Baby Safe Haven New England MySpace page.

Unlike most political websties, the Morriseys’ MySpace is littered with pictures of Jean Morrisey such as these:

These pictures are interspersed with a state’s “Safe haven” proclamation and pictures of the Morriseys at various “Safe Haven” bill signings.

With Massachusetts Lt. Governor Healy,

In Hawai’i, receiving a dump law resolution,

and in Vermont at the dump law signing with Governor Douglas.

Perhaps Nebraska legislators and Governor Heineman would care to be next to have their picture added to this gallery?

Again, these are all pictures the Morriseys themselves have placed on the Baby Safe Haven New England MySpace page.

This is what they themselves apparently feel is appropriate for their political activism page.

Lest anyone think such is a one time lapse of judgement, this gallery also on their MySpace page also contains similar:

While the Morriseys are certainly welcome to do such, one really has to question the Morriseys’ judgement when it comes to placing such (amidst the cat calls of her middle aged male fans) on a website supposedly dedicated to advocating public policy relating to children.

(Clearly these are people with no notion what-so-ever of “appropriate time and place”.)

***

Tim Jaccard, Children of Hope, National Safe Haven Alliance

As I wrote several weeks back in a piece entitled Nebraska attempts to slam to barn door, only creating a new set of problems:

But let’s go back and talk about Tim Jaccard himself. It’s time to talk about who some of these people who push dump laws are.

Legalized abandonment organizations across the country (many of which are best described as kitchen table organizations) run hotlines. On the other end of those calls lies a process for dumping, with people like Jaccard sometimes in the middle of such.

Under the dump laws a womyn gives birth, likely in secret, perhaps unattended, if she survives, the resulting newborn is then to be taken to a hospital.

Jaccard, far beyond mere dump law advocate has been deeply involved in making abandonments happen himself, an intrinsic part of them. In People magazine back in 2003, he admitted to assisting in secret births, once in Central Park and “once in a girl’s bedroom while her parents slept down the hall.”*

Yes, that means a hidden pregnancy, Jaccard assisting the secret birth, while the girl’s parents were asleep in the same house. Then the baby being “safe havened.”

Does this sound like the kind of law that fosters good interfamily communication?

Do you think that those parents ever learned of their daughter’s secret pregnancy, or the middle aged man prowling around their house that night making the resultant baby just go away?

Jaccard and others like him are what lie on the other end of the dump laws. They are the practical application of the dump laws.

(* The quote in question was taken from the March 17, 2003 issue of People Magazine.)