The Adoption Industry, Part 1: Demand

In exploring the industry of adoption, it is fundamental to first explain why there is a market for children in the first place. Why do adults choose to adopt babies and children who are biologically unrelated to them?

1. Infertility: A heterosexual couple is unable to create and/or carry a biological child. This includes secondary infertility (infertility after the birth of one or more biological children.)
2. Need help: Parents are unable to have a child without reproductive assistance. This includes infertile couples that do not wish to use medical assistance, lesbian and gay couples, and single parents.
3. Health: Concerns about passing on a genetic disorder in the mother’s or father’s family. Pregnancy could cause the health of the mother to be seriously impaired. The mother and/or family have been exposed to certain elements (chemical, medical, etc.) that may cause birth defects.
4. Choosing gender: A family with two or more biological children of the same gender adopt in order to parent a child of the opposite gender. The adopted child is almost always a girl. (These families usually choose international adoption because the children are already born, although some domestic adoption agencies allow adoptive parents to specify gender.)
5. Personal beliefs: Parents who adopt for religious or philosophical reasons. This includes preferential adopters.

The domestic infant adoption system caters to one group of prospective adoptive parents: heterosexual, White, middle and upper class, infertile, married couples (the great majorities of groups 1 & 3, and much of group 2). This system has broadened itself a bit; certain agencies now accommodate same-sex couples and/or single parents (mostly mothers), and a handful of infant adoption agencies actively recruit parents/families of color (The Cradle and Pact are two of the biggest nonsectarian names). Still, virtually all agencies are focused on families who cannot have children without assistance (groups 1, 2, & 3), and many agencies actually will not work with fertile couples.

Adoption fees rule out most potential adoptive parents who are not at least middle-class. Current domestic infant adoption fees for a healthy* baby, of any race, usually run in the $18,000-$30,000 range. This includes homestudy, paperwork, agency fees, legal fees, and living expenses for a pregnant woman. Travel costs, medical expenses (for baby and mother), and legal complications can push the cost even higher. International adoption fees vary by country, but costs often run higher than domestic adoption. About 40% of international adoptions and 20% of domestic infant adoptions cost more than $30,000.

*A note on the domestic infant adoption system definition of a healthy baby. A baby who is classified as ‘healthy’ includes a baby who was prenatally drug and/or alcohol exposed, was born prematurely, has no birthfather medical/social information (i.e. ‘unknown birthfather’), has a birthfamily history of moderate mental health problems and/or a birthfamily history of moderate genetically-transferable medical conditions. When a baby appears to be healthy at birth (no apparent physical, mental, or serious medical handicaps), that baby is part of the mainstream adoptive placement system, including standard fees. Fees are often reduced substantially for infants who are born with clear disabilities, have been prenatally exposed to extremely high levels of alcohol and/or illegal drugs, or have two birthparents who have mental health diagnoses.

When calculating adoption costs, there is the often misunderstood $10,000 federal adoption tax credit. The funds from this tax credit are not available until after an adoption has been legally finalized (usually 6-8 months after the placement of a child); adoptive parents must come up with all the money for adoption fees and expenses up front. In addition, this is a non-refundable tax credit; the tax credit is deducted from the federal tax a family owes over a period of up to five years. In adoption literature, it is often noted that a family is eligible for the adoption tax credit unless a family’s income exceeds federal restrictions (meaning: modified adjusted gross income of more than $204,000). It is never noted that if a family does not make enough money to owe any federal income tax (total income of less than $45,000/year for a family of four) the family does not qualify for the adoption tax credit. If a family owes less than $2,000/year in federal income tax, they will not receive the full adoption tax credit ($2,000 x 5 years = $10,000). NOTE: 4% of families in the U.S. make more than $200,000/year, while 40% of families in the United States make less than $50,000/year.

The majority of prospective adoptive parents waiting in the domestic adoption system fit the description of the people to which the system caters: White, middle/upper class, infertile, married, heterosexual couples. The great majority of these prospective parents are seeking a certain type of baby: usually White (at least 80%), and often also with a very healthy** social/medical family history (**very healthy meaning not only apparently healthy at birth, but also including not prenatally drug or alcohol exposed, no mental illness or major medical issues in either side of the birthfamily, full-term delivery, birthparents not in prison, and often more). Even so, White newborns with health issues, premature birth, mild to moderate birthfamily medical/social history issues, ‘unknown’ birthfather, or minor disabilities are still very desirable to these prospective adoptive parents.

The domestic infant adoption system does not easily accommodate adoptive parents who are outside the target prospective adoptive parent population. (The target adoptive-parent-client population excludes portions of groups 1-4, and all of group 5.) In addition, if a prospective adoptive parent is prepared to care for a child of any race who has been prenatally drug and/or alcohol exposed or has moderate to serious, multiple, or unknown birthfamily medical/social issues, why would they choose domestic infant adoption ($18,000-$30,000 or more in fees) instead of foster care adoption (often less than $2,000 in fees)? The more open a prospective adoptive family is, the less likely they are part of the domestic infant adoption system.

Prospective adoptive parents who fall outside the targeted adoptive parent population (especially working or lower-middle class families, People of Color, and fertile couples) are more likely to choose foster adoption or toddler/older child international adoption-for many different reasons. Because they have family or personal connections to another country. Because they have lived abroad or traveled extensively. Because they know what it’s like to be involved with Child and Family Services. Because they themselves were in foster care. Because they are not afraid (rightly or not) of the issues and history children in foster care, older children, and/or institutionalized children may bring home. Because they have already raised their biological children from infancy, and would prefer to parent older children. Because they want to ‘help’ a child who has less opportunity for a family. Because they know how many children of color are in foster care or orphanages–and how long these children wait for a family.

This is where the domestic adoption ‘market’ becomes extremely unbalanced. Prospective adoptive parents are overwhelmingly White, and they are seeking White babies. (However, it must be noted that Black American families adopt at twice the rate of White American families.) There is a racial hierarchy of adoption. Certain babies, through the unearned privilege of their racial ancestry, are easier to place in an adoptive family. From most prospective adoptive families waiting to least families waiting, the racial hierarchy ranges from light to dark, from undeveloped White American history to most complex; the newborns who are most quickly matched with an adoptive family have White (also known as European American) ancestry, then Asian ancestry, Hispanic/Latino ancestry, Native American ancestry, and finally Black ancestry. In adoption, girls are also easier to place than boys; thus, the easiest child to find an adoptive family for is a White girl, the most difficult is a Black boy. Biracial and multiracial children are shuttled to their ‘darkest’ heritage in the racial hierarchy. Thus, finding an adoptive family for a biracial Black/White boy is similar to finding a family for a ‘full’ Black boy (full Black meaning two Black-identifying biological parents). Within the infant adoption system, it is still common to read or hear descriptions of pregnant women that include the shade of their skin, or even the fair skin-tone of a newborn biracial baby. (The latter could only be information offered by White professionals with no experience with infants/people of color.)

As long as the practice and process of adoption remains an ‘industry’, prospective adoptive parents will be regarded as ‘customers’. In such a system, infants, children, and mothers will necessarily continue to be viewed and treated as merchandise, objects to be marketed to the paying clientele (as in the misleading ‘light-skinned’ biracial newborn). It is an oft-repeated phrase in many corners of the adoption system nowadays that adoption agencies are looking for families for children, not children for families. This statement must become the blanket truth about adoption.

Following segments will address supply in the adoption system (including domestic infants, children in foster care, international infants/toddlers, international older children, and systemic birthparent/family coercion), whether adoption is necessary (including what can be done to lower the ‘need’ for adoptive families), adoption ethics and the rights of mothers (including pregnant women), specific coverage of foster care adoption and international adoption (including a more in-depth exploration of the reasons parents choose different types of adoption), gender choice in adoption, and transracial adoption (including the racial and country hierarchies within transracial adoption).

Please feel free to ask questions in the comments; I will try to address them within the upcoming series segments. A full bibliography for the entire series will be available.

Please Tell Me This Isn’t Real

If you haven’t heard about it yet, please allow yourself to become completely ill and check out this Medical Adoptions website (hat tip to Paula and Mia). Their tag-line is “The Organs You Need - The Home They Deserve”. This is a purported international adoption agency offering ‘completely legal’ adoptions for the specified purpose of the adoptee being an organ donor to a parent or child in the adoptive family. Tissue matching is reportedly done at the beginning of the adoption process.

The consensus so far is that this is all a hoax. (The site states they have an office in the Appalachian mountains to service their U.S. clients. And that adoptions will be completed in 9-28 days.) Even if it is supposed to be some sort of political-statement-joke–I’m not laughing.

The scary thing (which one?) is that this idea is not that far fetched. Whoever made the site knows a lot about adoption: international adoption law, child trafficking law, stereotypical adoptive parents fears/concerns. The scary thing is that I’m not sure it’s fake. The site has already been forwarded to State Representatives in at least three states (soon to be four as soon as I’m done here).

The kicker? The fees are racially stratified. Race ’preference’ and adoption, hand-in-hand yet again. Here is a promotional quote (bold added):

We also afford parents the luxury of selecting the appropriate adoption package from our classes of Platinum, Gold, Bronze and Onyx. Some people don’t care, but if you’re buying in, you might as well get exactly what you want. I prefer pasta to rice, and I’m always willing to pay extra for it. Then again, I prefer Kung Pow to Roast Beef, and I’m willing to pay the difference for that as well. Whether it’s tissue or your heir, you deserve the right to make such a choice, and we not only allow it, but price it accordingly based strictly on supply and demand. These things can be critical to some parent beneficiaries, so we extend that option to our patrons.

My question: How can we change the way children are treated in this world, and how adoptions are conducted, so that there would be no question in my mind that this is simply a sick and twisted farce?

Race Preference in Adoption

This American Life aired a piece on NPR–on January 18, 2008–about a Nurse/Actress who worked in toy store FAO Schwartz’s Newborn Nursery (hat tip to Mixed Race America and Land of the Not-So-Calm). Here is the toy store’s promotional quote:

What You Will Experience When You Visit a Newborn Nursery:
As you enter the area, you’ll hear sounds of happy baby noises cooing from the nursery viewing area. When you peek through the glass, you’ll see a variety of babies with all different complexions and hair and eye colors. It’s almost too difficult to choose just one bundle of joy to take home! Once you do make your selection, a sales associate dressed like a real nurse, will help you put on your hospital gown. Papers are then completed with the baby’s name, address, and birth date. The “nurse” will carry your baby out of the isolette and will place him or her on a changing table. She’ll conduct a full health examination of your baby and then she’ll teach you how to hold your baby. New “parents” can shop for accessories (including dresses, blankets, shoes and more.) to make their new arrival the prettiest baby on the block!

(There are a lot of things about the way FAO Schwartz handles infant doll adoptions that really bother me, but I am going to focus on adoption and race issues here.)

The 17-minute American Life story is so worth listening to (download the whole “Matchmakers” show here and then fast forward to 41:00 minutes). The narrator is a light-skinned biracial (White and Mexican) woman working as a ‘nurse’. WARNING: PLOT SPOILER AHEAD . . . The dolls/babies begin to move quickly after they are featured on a segment of the TV show ‘Rich Girls’. Most of the ‘adopting mothers’ (approximate age: 7 years old) are White. Not surprisingly (to me at least), FAO Schwartz sells out of all the White baby dolls–within weeks of Christmas. The doll factory is back-ordered until mid-January. FAO Schwartz’s doll nursery has only minority Babies of Color available for sale adoption.

After the White babies are gone, then the Asian babies sell out. Next to go are the light brown (Latino/Hispanic, Native American, multiracial?) babies. The nursery is then full of Black babies–along with one factory-rejected White doll (with melted-together fingers that make its hands look like flippers). The unsellable factory-reject White floor-model doll is purchased adopted when there is an entire ‘nursery’ full of perfect Black babies dolls available.

Nothing about this story surprises me; it is simply play (some would say art) imitating life. I’m going to talk about supply and demand here. Let’s pretend we’re just talking about the FAO Schwartz doll nursery.

The people paying for the dolls/adoption are (for the most part) wealthy White parents, with White daughters choosing their baby to adopt doll. The parents want their daughter to have a White doll. Most of the daughters want a White doll. When all the White dolls have already been sold adopted by other little-girl-mothers, the racial hierarchy of doll-adoption flows the same way it does for children in real life. (Although in real life there is also the parallel gender-preference hierarchy. In the toy nursery, the ‘adoptive mothers’ simply state that their dolls/babies are girls. In real life, the adoptive parents request girls and the boys just wait.)

Here’s a real-life paralell example: a site that hosts pre-adoptive parent profiles*, families waiting for domestic–usually infant–adoption (NOTE: this site only accepts heterosexual, married couples–and most are Christian as well). Of the hundreds of currently listed waiting families:

• 88% would ‘accept’ a White baby
• 33% would ‘accept’ a South American or Hispanic baby
• 28% would ‘accept’ an Asian baby
• 26% would ‘accept’ a Native American baby
• 14% would ‘accept’ a Black baby

I ran these same stats for an article I wrote two years ago, and the numbers were just about the same. For biracial babies (White/____) the numbers of families willing to ‘accept’ a child rises. Adoptive parents still think raising a part-White biracial child will be easier, less complicated, than raising a ‘full’ (for example) African American child. (Ha!)

There are also the corollary international adoption statistics. The top 10 ’sending’ countries for 2006 provided U.S. families with 18,290 new children through international adoption. By region of the world, these children are from:

• 43% from Asia (China, Korea, India)
• 26% from Eastern Europe (Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine)
• 24% from Central and South America (Guatemala, Colombia)
• 7% from Africa (Ethiopia, Liberia)

The parts of this doll adoption story that strike deep inside me echo the same heart-issues I have with race and adoption in real life. Although transracial adoption should not be taken lightly (At all!), I have been kept up many a night thinking of all those Children of Color waiting for adoptive families, all those pregnant women seeking families for their unborn Children of Color. When will skin color and race be just one more thing we see when we look at someone (like their gender or their height)? When will light skin stop being a tally in the ‘plus’ category and dark skin a tally in the ‘minus’ category? If we as transracially adoptive parents are not expected (or able) to get past this light/dark skin-tone scale, who will?

I remember one pre-adoptive parent I was working with who was considering switching from the willing-to-accept-a-White-baby-only category to the ‘biracial’ category. This parent had a potential ‘match’ and wanted to know if their unborn biracial child would look ‘more White or more Black’. I gave the standard multiracial-children-come-in-all-shades response. But what I really wanted to say was, “If you have to ask that question, I don’t think you get it.” Black/White biracial is Black. If a parent can’t accept a ‘full’ Black child as their own, how can they embrace the Black-ness of a biracial child? As a country, we must be willing, no, committed to discussing race and racism and White privilege–as they relate to adoption and foster care (and to everything else).

Although I believe that no one should adopt a child they do not feel prepared to parent (race/ethnicity or known special needs), becoming a parent is not a multiple choice menu. Just because parents engineer their child to be what they desire or (in the case of adoptive parents) are ‘willing to accept’–that does not by any means guarentee the menu-selected individual will be the child those parents receive (through birth or adoption). When you have children, you get what you get–much of your child is unknown no matter how you build your family. The unknowns involved in building a family are both magical and scary, but IMO worth all the risk.

* NOTE: Finding accurate statistics for domestic adoption is impossible. Statistics are collected for almost all states for foster care adoption, but infant adoption is regulated by individual states, and neither states nor the federal government collect these statistics.

Where are the Outraged Parents here?

I’ve been reading the (rightfully) outraged commentary about the grossly entitled New York Times post by transracially adoptive parent Tama Janowitz. If you haven’t read it yet, this is the quote that is driving everyone the most mad:

So in a way it is kind of nice to know as a parent of a child, biological or otherwise - whatever you do is going to be wrong. Like I say to Willow: “Well, you know, if you were still in China you would be working in a factory for 14 hours a day with only limited bathroom breaks!”

Here’s why I haven’t written about Ms. Janowitz before now . . . Because I was waiting for the ground-swell of outraged adoptive parents, the ones who are just as angered and sickened by this commentary on [adoptive] parenting as the censored adult adoptee voices. But those adoptive parents are nowhere to be found.

The only adoptive parents I have found who are speaking out about this mess are Paula (who is also a transracial adult adoptee) and Dawn (who says only that adult adoptee voices need/deserve to be heard).

Now I’m all for hearing from adult adoptees; there is no other way to have a full and accurate discussion regarding adoption. But where are the adoptive parents who think that Tama’s attitude is garbage (and dangerous garbage at that)–just because it is!? This post offends me, and not just because I visualize my children, my friends as Tama’s child.

The anxiety that keeps me up at night is that Tama’s viewpoint really is that of most adoptive parents. That although adoptive parents may not be so ‘funny’/casual/cruel about it, they really do believe they have saved their child. Saved them not only from poverty, but also from their birthfamily and birth-culture. This ’saving’ which then necessitates some level of gratitude from the child.

Which is why these same adoptive parents do not feel obligated to bring their child’s birth-culture into the family, or even into their child’s life. As a family member of mine said (oh yes they did, and in a totally honest way), “What exactly is good about Black American culture?” But that was a (now educated) extended family member; that was not my partner or me. (And boy, did I have to sit there and breath for a minute before answering that one. I think I started with the brilliant, “Are you kidding me?”)

I had my partner read Tama’s post last night. His take was that she was playing on a stereotype of a brash, self-centered New Yorker (”F-you, kid!”). And then the photo of Tama and her daughter at the top of Susan’s post this morning made me think ‘child as fashion accessory’ (and honestly, I never think that of APs, not even Angelina Jolie).

AN ASIDE: I can’t believe that we (those of us who are part of the adoptive family ‘community’) are still debating whether an adoptive parent-child relationship is different–for the child or the parent–from a biological parent-child relationship. Can we just agree–it’s not better or worse, but IT IS DIFFERENT. And the adoptive parent-child relationship is (not in a bad way, but in a real way) also more complicated. When can we acknowledge these truths, and move on? As long as we (adoptive parents) try to pretend that adoptive relationships are the same as biological relationships, we are living in the land of denial. (It’s like saying that a multiracial family is the same as a monoracial family, or that a 2-mom family is the same as a mom-and-dad family. None is better or worse than another, but I think we are all (most of us?) aware that living in a multiracial family or a 2-mom family is probably inherently more complicated.)

My major disbelief? I cannot believe Ms. Janowitz has been chosen as a representative/average adoptive parent voice.

My biggest fear? That she is.

  

FURTHER READING

Posts by adult adoptees, including scathing commentary on the NYT’s refusal to publish their comments:

• A Comment About the Comments & All The (Adoption) News That They See Fit to Print, from Paula at Heart, Mind, and Seoul (Paula is also an adoptive parent.)
• New York Times aka “The Adoption Police?” & Relative Choices? from Harlow’s Monkey
• Shut Up, Tama Janowitz. Just shut up. And turn in your parenting license while you’re at it. from Susan at Reading, Writing, Living
• Racist M/Paternailsm at its Best, from Lisa Marie at A Birth Project
• To Willow Janowitz: You’re Not Alone, from Sarah Kim at Outside In
• The New York Times: Gatekeeper, Censor, from Twice the Rice
• Tama Janowitz on NYT Adoption Blog, from Sun Yung Shin

Other Posts:

• Save one, win valuable prizes & What you should have have read in the NYT, from Resist Racism
• Whoa. Hey. People - this isn’t ok, from Dawn at This Woman’s Work
• The New York Times Censors Adult Adoptees on Adoption Blog, from Racialicious

On Culture Camp

Last summer, a friend of mine ripped a few pages out of her Adoptive Families magazine and mailed them to me (I don’t subscribe). “I thought you might like to share this on your site,” she said. What she sent me was the Summer Heritage Guide–a list of ‘Heritage’ and ‘Culture’ camps specifically designed for children who have been transracially adopted.

The idea of Culture Camp has always troubled me, but I had never really thought about it in depth. As I read, parts of the articles made me wince. Here are some of the most noteworthy statements (my comments are inside the parentheses):

Summer vacations are perfect for celebrating culture. (As opposed to the rest of the year?)

For many families, especially those who live in less diverse areas, camp is a good way to expose a child to his ethnic culture. (If there are no other more normal, daily alternatives.)

Biggest camp benefit? 84 percent of families say it allows their child to spend more time with children of his own ethnicity. (Does the child have any local friends who share their ethnicity or race? Do the parents have any friends of their child’s race or ethnicity?)

Camp gives [Emma] a chance to spend time with kids who look like her. (Why do parents think it is acceptable to raise a child in a community–or a social circle–where nobody looks like her?)

A parent might think, ‘How else are we going to learn it?’ (Teach yourself. Read a book. Learn from a new friend.)

A mom who adopts a Korean child might say, ‘I’m not making kimchi.’ (Is this the parent’s attitude about everything that is not a part of their own birth-culture? Why did they adopt transracially and transnationally?)

Culture Camp seems like an inadequate band-aid attempting to cover a much bigger issue–White adoptive parents are raising thousands of children of color in virtually (or completely) all-White communities. The parents’ circle of friends is not multiracial. Many of these parents do not know an adult of their child’s ethnicity. Some of these parents have never known, beyond a causal acquaintance, any person of color. Some have known literally zero people of color in their entire lives.

Beyond the disconcerting need for Culture Camps in the first place, is the catch-22 these camps create. Adoptive parents who have an inkling that their child is not learning/experiencing enough of their birth-culture at home have a ’solution’ marketed directly to them–send your child to Culture Camp. Instead of addressing the family’s cultural deficiency at home, the children (or sometimes the whole family) go somewhere else to ‘experience’ the child’s birth-culture. An important portion of this child’s birthright has been relegated to a three-day Culture Camp weekend, usually designed and directed by other White adoptive parents.

Parents should not adopt transracially or transnationally if they are unprepared to incorporate their child’s birth-culture into the family’s culture. For an adopted child to be an integrated part of the family, the heritage of their birthfamily must be integrated into the adoptive family’s heritage. Even the most in-depth week-long whole-family Culture Camp experience is inadequate.

To pre-answer two likely questions:

1. Isn’t Culture Camp better than nothing? (Yes, of course, but not much better. The parents are saying, we know there is a discrepancy in our family plan, but we are counting on someone else to take care of it, to address it for us. All children need role-models and mentors who share defining parts of their selfhood–such as gender, race, or sexuality–and sometimes these mentors cannot be the child’s parents. However, an annual weekend immersion is not remotely sufficient to meet this need.)

2. Are you saying White parents who live in White communities shouldn’t adopt transracially? (If these parents have no plans to educate themselves about their child’s heritage and birth culture, and to substantially alter their lives to accommodate their new child–then no, these parents should not adopt transracially.)

This past summer, I attended a Multicultural day camp designed for transracially adoptive families. I was emailing with one of the camp planners about leading a workshop with parents on Talking About Race. Eventually, the director of this program decided that the parents attending the camp were already knowledgeable about the basic topics in transracial adoption and multicultural family life (which has not been my experience with transracially adoptive families here). So the day was just for fun activities with other ‘like’ families. I balked, but Jaja and I decided to make a mother-daughter day of it.

Many of the other families were already there when we pulled in. I led a suddenly shy Jaja up to the deck where the families were gathering. A woman approached me almost immediately. (I thought she might be one of the camp directors.) “Where is she from?” she said, ignoring my daughter, who was now trying to stand behind me.

“Excuse me?” I said.

“You know, where is she adopted from?” she asked again, jutting her chin in Jaja’s direction.

“The U.S.” I replied flatly.

“Oh,” she said, surprised. “What is she, you know, what’s her background?”

I could barely believe this interrogation. I was weighing my options when one of the camp planners arrived and saved me. But of course, we ended up at the same activity with this woman only 30 minutes later. Jaja was climbing the rock-wall and the questioning continued. “What did you say your daughter is?” she asked. By now I knew she was mother to several Asian children.

“Why do you ask?” I said.

“Oh, you know, she looks Southeast Asian,” she replied.

“She’s not,” I said.

“South American?” she speculated.

I wanted this guessing game over before Jaja was out of that harness. I gave my ’short’ answer. “She’s African American . . . ,” I began.

“She doesn’t look it,” the woman interrupted.

I continued with my shpiel as if she’d said nothing, “Actually, all four of my children are multiracial. Our family has Native American, African American, and European American heritage.”

“Who’s Native American?” she asked.

“I have Cherokee heritage,” I volunteered.

“Cool,” she replied. “Come’ere,” she called to one of her daughters. The girl came over. “This woman is part Native American.” The mother pointed at me. I felt like a museum display.

“Wow,” her daughter said. Clearly she was supposed to be impressed, or something.

When Jaja had a second turn rock climbing, I heard about this woman’s plan to adopt again. She had been considering Ethiopia because you don’t have to travel. “You can just pick the kid up at the airport,” she said. (”Why not use FedEx?” quipped Jaja’s godmother–herself internationally adopted–when I relayed this part of the conversation.) But the woman’s children were pressing for a baby from their birth-country, so that was the family’s current plan.

The whole day didn’t go this way. If it had, I probably would have left. Overall, it was okay. I made a point to talk to all the parents present; there were families from four states. They are (all but one family) raising their children in virtually all-White communities. (By virtually all-White, I mean maybe 4-5% people of color, at most.) Their children were often the only child of color in their class at school. None of the parents had moving on their agenda. (I tried to be quiet about our family’s plans because I’ve found that talking about moving–which inevitably leads to the reasons why we plan to move–makes local transracially adoptive parents anxious.) There were certainly some very kind parents present. There were also no visible adults of color. (A 20ish counselor from the camp staff was around for one activity in the morning–so I take it back. There was, briefly, one.) There were also the sad negative stereotypes of White parents with children of color: ashy skin (you don’t have to be Black–just brown), unkempt hair.

Jaja stayed close to me most of the day. In retrospect, I probably should have brought Rico or Gretel as well (my kids are so used to a sister or brother for comfort and company, and I didn’t realize most of the kids there would be a few years older than Jaja), but we had a peaceful one-on-one day. Jaja got to choose all our activities for a change (rock-climbing, canoeing, swimming, drawing, cooking, and bracelet making). She already knew a couple girls who were there, and she warmed up to them in the afternoon.

The only ‘Camp’ in this vein I could be persuaded to attend in the future is PACT Family Camp. The camp’s goal is to explore adoption, race, and parenting in transracially adoptive families. The camp staff talks with parents about race and racism. They have adult transracial adoptees as mentors for the kids and teachers for the parents. Just the fact that this camp is supported (and attended) by John Raible and Lisa Marie Rollins gives it credibility in my book.

The one great part about this day was Farm and Wilderness, the location of the camp. The camp programs (run by F&W) are rooted in Quaker values. In the ‘What to Expect’ section of their brochure, under the heading ‘Diverse Community’ it reads:

Your child will live closely with children and staff from different backgrounds, cultures, and races. We teach respect for differences and expect campers to interact at all times in ways that are respectful and inclusive. Prejudice, discrimination, and oppressions on the basis of class, race, gender, and sexual orientation are discussed in a variety of forums during a camper’s time at F&W.

My kids aren’t going to school yet, but maybe we should start thinking about (F&W) camp.