Last year I lived in the Marshall Islands, an isolated Pacific island nation. The day before I left, my host uncle came to me in private. "Seven years ago, my daughter was born in the capital. When my wife and I were raising her, an American came to me asking for our baby. Because it is our culture, we agreed. Do you know when she will come back?"
He gave me the name and address of the adoption agency, Journeys of the Heart, whose agent had taken his child. When I returned to the United States I began contacting agency personnel, who did not respond. Each time I wrote, I clearly described the tragic details of the story and asked them to forward my requests for information to the adoptive family. Finally, I received an e-mail from the executive director, Susan Tompkins. She wrote: "Journeys of the Heart does not provide family contact information, as this would be illegal and unethical." I replied that stealing babies was unethical.
In 2002, seven U.S. adoption agencies were working in the Marshall Islands. After a law was passed to prevent corrupt adoption practices, the only agency to receive a license was Journeys of the Heart. Its Web site proudly advertises "Marshall Island (sic) Child Adoption Going Strong." It continues, "The birth mother and her family generally welcome any contact including visits, phone calls or the required letters." As for visits, the island I lived on receives a boat that offloads food every two and a half months. Anybody who has been to the Marshall Islands knows that the majority of people do not have any access to telephones or mail. But for kidnappers, the facts are of no consequence.
The agency's main goal is to get "as many of the world's children out of harm's way as possible." By this logic, it is harmful simply to live in poor countries, which apparently can't approach our own moral and cultural superiority. Thus, any baby living in a poor country is a legitimate target of such supposedly progressive ideals. We can be reminded of a similar humanitarian vision stated by Christopher Columbus: "Let us in the name of the Holy Trinity go on sending (to Spain) all the slaves that can be sold." It seems the worst aspect of colonialism is still our manifest destiny.
For carrying, bearing, beginning to raise and giving up their infant, the young mother and father received nothing. The reason is simple: for adoption companies, giving birth parents nothing is more profitable than giving them something. This is what happens when children become commodities, and agents are paid based on commission.
I was hoping that what happened in the Marshall Islands was an anomaly. But instead, the conditions are generalizable. The practice of concealing the "illegal and unethical" adoptions behind the front of legitimate agencies is called child laundering.
Leave a comment 10 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
"an American came to me asking for our baby. Because it is our culture, we agreed. Do you know when she will come back?" Can someone explain that for me?
Reply to this Top
Perhaps you'd better contact Madonna.
Reply to this Top
While I think this is a moving article that discloses many of the harsh and unacceptable realities regarding child-trafficking by/for adoption agencies, the author’s review of the New York Times article is inaccurate. The author claims that “An April 4 New York Times article notes that our [Americans’] demand for babies from China, the second-biggest (and soon to be biggest) child ‘supplier,’ contributes to a lucrative market in abducted children that may number in the ‘hundreds of thousands.’†I assume the author is referencing the article “Chinese Hunger for Sons Fuels Boys’ Abductions†by Andrew Jacobs published on April 4, 2009 (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/world/asia/05kidnap.html?ref=asia). As the title of the NYT article affirms, this particular story is about internal child-trafficking fueled by Chinese (not American) demand for boys: “Although some are sold to buyers in Singapore, Malaysia and Vietnam, most of the boys are purchased domestically by families desperate for a male heir . . . The demand is especially strong in rural areas of south China, where a tradition of favoring boys over girls and the country’s strict family planning policies have turned the sale of stolen children into a thriving business.†Although this is an opinions column, cited information should stay true to its declared source.
Reply to this Top
Thank you all for your thoughtful comments. Snake, Marshallese culture dictates that residents give visitors whatever they like. Furthermore, locals are taught to defer to white foreigners. I would be happy to explain this further if you send me an email. I am afraid that Dr. G is incorrect. Five paragraphs after the reference Dr. G cities, the NYTimes reporter contends that "some of the [abducted] girls were sold to orphanages. They are the lucky ones who often end up in the United States or Europe after adoptive parents pay fees to orphanages that average $5,000." Therefore, American "demand for babies from China...contributes to a lucrative market in abducted children," precisely as I wrote.
Reply to this Top
Is there some reason you or the man didn't contact the US consulate, or any other US or MI government officials, who could investigate the case?
Reply to this Top
I agree that several countries have shut down adoptions due to the surfacing of *some* illegal/unethical activity. However, I do NOT agree that this implies "it is possible that the majority of international adoptions are thefts." For example, Guatemala shut down adoptions, where some involved with adoption contend that a small percentage of adoptions (perhaps 1-2%) were possibly fradulent in some way (such as coercing a birthmother or submitting false documents to officials). This percentage is based on the number of cases the US Embassy and the Guatemalan government refused to process. While that percentage is unacceptable, it does not translate to the "majority" of adoptions being fradulent. Since the author could not cite concrete evidence, he should not have offered his unsubstantiated opinion. In our case, we have two children adopted from Guatemala, and we have ongoing contact with both of their birthfamilies - who pursued adoption for their sons so they could have more opportunities in life, opportunities they did not feel they or Guatemala could offer. Until countries like Guatemala are able to provide for its citizens (there are currently NO social services, and schooling is not free), children are going to suffer horribly from the effects of poverty. And a mother should have the option of placing a child for adoption if that is her wish.
Reply to this Top
Some adoptive parents are open to contact with birthfamilies. Mr Burke, please feel free to email me privately, and I can connect you with some resources where we can perhaps locate the adoptive family. While he will not likely get his child back, he can possibly establish a regualr relationship with the child.
Reply to this Top
What???: "An April 4 New York Times article notes that our demand for babies from China, the second-biggest (and soon to be biggest) child "supplier," contributes to a lucrative market in abducted children that may number in the "hundreds of thousands." Some parents "post fliers in places where children are often sold and travel the country to stand in front of kindergartens as they let out." Tragically, in the future we should expect that an adoption scandal will rock the Chinese market as well." There is a serious flaw of logic in this - number 1, a bit less than 4,000 Chinese children were adopted by Americans in 2008 - these children are all vetted through the CCAA and confirmed as abandoned/orphaned children by the police and Chinese government, the NYT story made no such link and was primarily focused on internal trafficking and baby selling. Number 2, by "travel the country", I assume you mean PRC, not USA, and if that is the case then your issue should be with the black market domestic child trafficking issues, not the government sanctioned Domestic and International adoption program administered by the CCAA.
Reply to this Top
Your article may have been accurate in describing adoption practice in the RMI in 2002, but it is not today. It is the Marshall Islands government, through their adoption act of 2003 and administered by the CAA that handles adoption of ALL Marshallese children today. They, not Journeys of the Heart, are the ones who match adoptive families with children. They are the ones who ensure ongoing contact - not Journeys of the Heart. To describe what they are doing as "child laundering" is insensitive the Marshallese themselves who have worked hard to protect the interests of their children, including working with US INS to crack down on illegal stateside adoptions of Marshallese children. While I applaud your effort to raise the critical importance of ethical adoptions, to disparage Marshallese adoptions today through the experience of your host family 7 years ago is a stretch. There are enough ethical problems in the adoption industry without creating false insinuations. A little research would have made this a more helpful article rather than simply a venting of your frustration.
Reply to this Top
If you are really interested in helping your Marshallese host family find their child, you should contact the CAA (RMICAA@yahoo.com) which maintains a database of adoptive families. They will be in a position to release the information to your friends. By law Journey's cannot, lest they engage in yet another form of unethical and illegal behavior. There are also a number of adoptive parents groups stateside that have been successful in tracking down adopted children for their Marshallese families. (RMIKIDS Yahoo group being one of them).
Reply to this Top