Today’s guest blogger is Shavon Swain.
On October 31, 2013 the Chicago Tribune produced an editorial titled, Shut down Internet Adoptions; ‘Re-homing’ is for pets, not children. This editorial was written as lawmakers in Chicago joined forces to discuss the growing, yet disturbing trend of “re-homing”. In this article re-homing is defined as, “…transactions-typically arranged through online contacts-between frazzled parents who want to unload kids they regret adopting and strangers who can’t or won’t adopt through legal channels.” Re-homing was brought to the attention of lawmakers following an investigative report by Reuters, which found adoptive parents advertising children they no longer wanted online. We have strong adoptions laws to regulate adoption practices and ensure the safety of the children who may be adopted. However, as this article illustrates this new underground community, where child swapping takes place, poses numerous threats to the safety and well-being of children who have been adopted. In several cases it was found that children were relinquished to individuals with questionable backgrounds, including a pedophile that was given a ten-year-old boy, and parents with histories of child sexual abuse who were given several children. Lawmakers are now urging social media outlets to implement practices that prohibit “re-homing forums” on their websites.
A major strength of this article is that it brings to the forefront a concerning trend that is on the rise in this country. Simultaneously it also helps to dispel our societies idealistic view of adoptions. In the United States we have historically held a fairy tale image of adoption; a loving family welcoming a bouncing baby into their lives that they will take care of and raise as their own. Unfortunately, for some children who have been adopted life is anything but a fairy tale. Many adopted parents find themselves ill prepared to address the emotional/behavioral needs of their children, services are often limited and we now see, many are turning to re-homing as a solution.
This article did a great job of debunking the idealistic image of adoption, however it would have been helpful if more information was providing regarding the scope and impact of re-homing. For example: Approximately how many children are re-homed in this country? What societal factors have contributed to this trend? What are the repercussions for the adoptive parents who decide to just “give” their adoptive children to strangers? That information would increase our understanding of this trends impact and may provide insights into how we can work together to eliminate this practice.
Reference: Shut down Internet Adoptions; ‘Re-homing’ is for pets, not children.