Trafficking, Murder, and Re-Homing: An Adoption Story
Arabella McCormack’s life ended when she was murdered, allegedly at the hands of her mother and grandparents; she was 11 years old. Reading about this innocent, who leaves behind two younger siblings, is devastating. Five children die every day in the U. S. from child abuse and neglect, and for a brief moment in time, Arabella’s face represented all of them. The headline from NBC News reporting on the crime read:
California megachurch elder and her parents charged with murder, torture of adopted 11-year-old daughter
Adopted daughter. Even in death, Arabella is other. Not wholly daughter; adopted daughter.
This feels like innuendo. The word choice, “adopted daughter” simultaneously evokes pity — for Arabella and the alleged perpetrators — while conjuring images of the troubled adopted child, born drug-addicted or feral, unwanted, mercifully taken in by church going folks.
Sadly, Arabella won’t be the last casualty of the adoption industrial complex. There’s just too much money to be made. So when parents feel they can no longer handle/adapt to/train up/vibe/whatever with the child they chose to adopt forever, a few will commit filicide, but the vast majority will seek help, access resources, and see things through, as good parents tend to do. But then there are some, between 1–5% of adoptive parents, who may find themselves asking, is there a return policy?
For now there is no formal, streamlined way to return an adopted child, but options such as putting the child up for a “second chance adoption” do exist. Sounds peachy, right? Parents use ad sites, social media, and private adoption agencies to facilitate the practice of re-homing adopted children. With a home study, some references, enough cash, and a notary, you’ve got yourself a secondhand child! Slightly used, but like new! And yes, it can actually be that easy because there are currently no laws, oversight, or regulations on the issue.
We already know adoptees — the ones adopted once — experience a higher prevalence of mental health and substance abuse problems and they are four times more likely to commit suicide than their non-adopted peers. There is not yet sufficient data on re-homed children, but we do know it is a dangerous practice which compounds existing trauma. Aside from the pain and confusion of being voted off the island, many re-homed children experience sex trafficking, abuse, torture, abandonment, and sometimes death once they are re-homed. Some children disappear altogether, never to be seen again.
****************************************************************************
The practice of re-homing gained mainstream attention in the U. S. when a social media influencer and her husband decided to re-home the son they adopted from China. After five years of giving it a go — five years — it turns out this couple with four biological children, were unable to meet the needs of the child they prayed for, a child who also happens to be experiencing autism. I mean, I guess when people pay for a Chinese baby who appears to be perfectly healthy some may feel entitled to renege when the child is not as advertised. But autism isn’t obvious in many infants and is not a predictable diagnosis prior to birth. Many are not diagnosed until after the age of two. So I have to ask, what would this couple have done if one of their biological children had been diagnosed with autism? What will they do when challenges arise in the future? Would they have aborted a fetus known to have Down Syndrome? Without having firsthand knowledge or access to a crystal ball, I think it is safe to assume they would not have re-homed their biological child.
Since the mid-1970s , the last period in which large numbers of women relinquished their children for adoption, the percentage of singlewomen who relinquish their infants has declined from nearly 9 percent to less than 1 percent. This is due to a number of factors including access to birth control, Plan B, sex education, and the SCOTUS decision on Roe in 1973.
Roe evokes strong reactions from anti-choice folks today, and they’d like you to believe reproductive rights has always been a top issue for the church, but they would be wrong. In 1971, the Southern Baptist Convention passed the following resolution supporting the right to abortion in cases of incest or rape, evidence of a deformed fetus, and protection of the mother’s physical and mental well-being.
Resolution On Abortion, adopted at the SBC convention, June 1971:
WHEREAS, Christians in the American society today are faced with difficult decisions about abortion; and
WHEREAS, Some advocate that there be no abortion legislation, thus making the decision a purely private matter between a woman and her doctor; and
WHEREAS, Others advocate no legal abortion, or would permit abortion only if the life of the mother is threatened;
Therefore, be it RESOLVED, that this Convention express the belief that society has a responsibility to affirm through the laws of the state a high view of the sanctity of human life, including fetal life, in order to protect those who cannot protect themselves; and
Be it further RESOLVED, That we call upon Southern Baptists to work for legislation that will allow the possibility of abortion under such conditions as rape, incest, clear evidence of severe fetal deformity, and carefully ascertained evidence of the likelihood of damage to the emotional, mental, and physical health of the mother
In 1973 reactions of the Roe decision from conservative and evangelical church leaders were described as muted, subdued, or even nonexistent. A good example is a statement from W. A. Criswell, the former president of the Southern Baptist Convention and former pastor of the First Baptist Church of Dallas. He said, “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person.”
It wasn’t until 1976 when an actor from California took up the mantle of moral legislation and gave birth to the anti-choice movement. By 1980, Reagan Republicans were hooked on abortion politics and they were thirsty for a linchpin with which secure future elections. Enter Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority. Since the 1980s every major Republican candidate has assumed the position at the altar of moral legislation, not because it is what they believe, or how they live, but because they want to get elected. That’s it. That’s the reason.
So while conservative elected officials were greasing the wheels of the evangelical community, church leaders responded in kind with a call to action, not only against reproductive rights, but by encouraging churchgoers to adopt. In 2007 Evangelical rock star Rick Warren made a call to action for Christian people to walk the walk by adopting unwanted children domestically and abroad, and to stop railing against abortion while doing nothing to support women experiencing unwanted pregnancy.
On its face, that is a strong, positive call for people to look beyond a politicized issue and into how real people are affected. Unfortunately, this activated a particularly nasty aspect of human nature, the belief that members of the dominant group should rescue those from groups deemed less fortunate by the dominant group: white saviorism. Among church leadership, the practice of adoption was seen as parallel to evangelical Christians’ “adoption by God”, the time in which one is born again. This led to tens of thousands of transnational adoptions by mostly well meaning people, unintentionally paving the road to hell with high morals and good intentions.
The thing about adoption is this: most women do not choose adoption. As one sociologist put it, “adoption is an extremely rare pregnancy decision” because it goes against human nature to relinquish your child. So where are all these children coming from? Some are relinquished voluntarily and with informed consent by the birth mother; the birth father was historically uninvolved in the process but that is getting better. Many, especially transnational adoptees, come from traffickers, kidnappers, and for-profit agency workers in developing countries who either trick women into signing away their babies without informed consent or they just take them. The children are then placed in orphanages, agencies or “homes”, until they can be rescued by their new American family. Trauma upon trauma upon trauma. All of it.
Transnational adoptees have higher rates of reactive attachment disorder (RAD), attention deficit disorder, unreported medical problems, failure to thrive, and pre-adoption incidences of sexual, physical, and emotional abuse. So it’s no wonder adoptive parents feel overwhelmed, lied to, ripped off, and devastated when the child they got is not actually the one from the brochure. Which is how some parents end up in the land of second chances. And it is a booming business. Just look at this photo (faces blurred to protect the innocent) and read these ads for very real children available online now:
“A just turned 9 years old and was adopted domestically. A needs a home where they can be the youngest and develop at their own speed. We feel that A deserves a home where they can soak up all the attention from parents who don’t need to divide their attention among other younger children in the home. We are looking for a homestudy ready (or can be quickly) family to adopt A who is Bible believing, church attending Christian and have no other children under the age of 12 (an older sister would be great too!) No LDS or Catholic please…”
“S just turned 7 and was adopted domestically. S never bonded with her adopted family, even from the very beginning …never happy to see them and has never turned to them for their needs. S does well outside of the home, enjoying the company of babysitters and grandparents over adopted family. Here at Second Chance, we believe that some children very quickly develop a negative attitude toward the first adopted family, feeling displaced almost immediately after the adoption. S’s adopted family thinks S would be happier in a different family and will likely feel rescued by the new family. When this happens, they will more easily form a secure attachment and begin to thrive as a child.”
“S is 10 years old and was adopted domestically. As is common with many of our Second Chance children, S needs to be the youngest in the family. We are looking for a homestudy ready family with no other children under the age of 13. S has a personal relationship with God, so we are asking that the new family be a Christian family who attends church, will pray with S and continue to foster a relationship with God. S loves all kinds of animals and we would like the new family to be pet friendly. We feel it is vital that S have a strong, safe male figure in her new home — so we will only be considering traditional married parents for her.”
Well! I mean, don’t these kids sound amazing?! And the lists of wants and desires these people have for the children they are abandoning, they are so specific! Oh! And there’s a tax break, because $$$$$$! The fine print at the bottom of each ad states:
*Adoption is a legal process so there will be costs associated. This adoption may qualify for the IRS Adoption Tax Credit.
I don’t know about y’all, but I’m envisioning a marketing scheme similar to the ASPCA. Soft lighting, Sarah McLachlan crooning in the background, pictures of smiling, thriving children eagerly waiting for that second (third?) chance. I can totally see that. Right?!
NO!
No! Because we do not get to freak out about re-homing dogs and allow this to happen to children with zero accountability, oversight, or regulation.
No! Because this is harming children and families!
No! Because this is wrong and there is room for meaningful change!
These kids are being sold to the highest and whitest (92%) bidder, and when that sweet little baby child from Russia or China or Alabama or California doesn’t rise to the occasion, when they come with unexpected defects that disrupt the flow of the preexisting family, they do not deserve be packed up and forced to adjust another family when they DID NOT CHOOSE any of this.
Trauma cannot be loved away. It cannot be fixed with snuggles or a picture perfect bedroom or a large yard complete with a swimming pool. It cannot be erased by following the commandments or reading scripture. Parents cannot nurture away the natural and real sorrow children feel for the loss of their culture and birth family, and there are not enough prayers to wash away a child’s desire to know her origin story.
Thinking about the influencer family, I believe they loved their adopted Asian son as much as they could. They just couldn’t love him as much as their biological children. And that is the truth that needs to be addressed with brutal honesty by every adoption worker and all potential adoptive parents. This is the start to meaningful change, consciously recognizing the fallacy of adoption as rescue.
We can also initiate change by using our power to vote out anti-choice officials who continue to vote down legislation that would actually keep families together. Some examples are Medicaid expansion, the implementation of re-homing legislation under the umbrella of human trafficking law, and providing adequate post-adoption resources such as healthcare and mental health treatment for the family. The success of an adoption is not up to the adopted child — it is a lifelong family process.
Adoption can be beautiful and healing, even in the midst of pain. It can be a relief for birth parents, an answered prayer for adoptive parents, and it can very literally be life-saving for adopted children. But we have to get it right from the beginning, every time. Real lives depend on it. Arabella McCormack’s life depended on it. Good will is not enough. Love is not enough.
