New attitudes toward adoption from foster care offer hope

Advocates: International adoptions need stronger safeguards, support for families

Half a world away from her birthplace in Ethiopia, teenager Hana Williams died on a rainy night in the backyard of what a prosecutor called a “house of horrors” — the rural home of her adoptive family in Washington state. The official causes of her death in May 2011 were malnutrition and hypothermia. She had been forced outside as a punishment. Authorities said that, during three years of adoption, Hana had been beaten repeatedly with switches, starved and made to sleep in a locked closet. The parents, Larry and Carri Williams, have been convicted of manslaughter and face sentencing Oct. 29. Yet more than two years after Hana’s death, few meaningful steps have been taken by state policymakers to reduce the chances of other adopted children suffering such abuse. A task force offered detailed recommendations, and a limited bill was introduced in Washington’s legislature. But it died in committee this year because of concerns it might infringe on parental rights. “We really are struggling to find something that will be both effective and constitutional,” said the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Mary Helen Roberts, a Democrat from Snohomish County. She plans to continue her efforts. While most adoptions are successful, the Williams case is among several recent grim adoption developments around the United States, prompting urgent calls for better safeguards and more post-adoption support. Yet many of those making the appeals admit to frustration; they say they have sounded alarms before, and they hold out little hope for prompt, sweeping responses that would strengthen international and domestic adoptions nationwide. A key reason is the nature of adoption in the United States — marked by inconsistent laws, incomplete data and the absence of any central authority. There are no authoritative statistics on the number of adoptions that fail and no reliable source of federal funding for post-adoption services. And there is a multitude of passionate organizations with often diverging views on how to maximize success stories and minimize tragedies. “There are so many different perspectives — the rights of the child, the rights of the family, the rights of the states,” said Sharon Osborne, president of the Children’s Home Society of Washington, who would like to see some form of post-adoption assessments in her state. “What we are advocating for is the best possible situation for a child and his or her newly formed family,” she said. “We can’t seem to get through the political challenges to make it a reality.” A report compiled after Hana Williams’s death documented 14 other cases of severe abuse or neglect of adopted children in the state from 2009 to 2011. Other cases of adoptions gone wrong have been highlighted by Russia, which last year banned adoptions of Russian children by Americans. Though the move was part of a broader political skirmish, it afforded Moscow the opportunity to complain about mistreatment and lack of post-adoption oversight. About 20 Russian adoptees have died at the hands of their American parents. In 2010, a Tennessee woman, having lost patience with her 7-year-old adopted son’s behavior, sent him back to Moscow on a plane — alone. More recently, articles by the Reuters news agency in September detailed a phenomenon known as “re-homing,” in which adoptive parents who have grown frustrated with a child — often one adopted from abroad — arrange through Web sites for another family to take the child. The sites were not regulated by any government authority, and the families taking the adopted children were not subject to any screening. In some cases, mistreatment ensued. Advocacy groups are now calling for such child-swapping to be outlawed or subject to oversight by state child-protection workers. “It makes you wonder: Is anyone going to want to do adoptions with us?” said Susan Jacobs, the State Department’s special adviser on children’s issues and the Obama administration’s point person on international adoptions. Some adoption advocates worry that the negative developments will result in fewer adoptions — and thus consign more children to lives in foster care or foreign orphanages. Some improvements are expected next July, when higher standards take effect for all U.S. adoption agencies that handle international adoptions. Among the many provisions of the Universal Accreditation Act is one requiring parents to receive training before the adoption to prepare them for future challenges. The law does not specifically address post-adoption problems. Children adopted from abroad generally become U.S. citizens without delay, and thus it would be problematic to conduct any special tracking of them unless it was on a voluntary basis. Although the State Department doesn’t have direct responsibility for international adoptions once they’re completed, Jacobs expressed interest in working with others in the adoption field to improve support services. “We need to help parents to find resources when they are having trouble . . . so they don’t turn to the Internet to get rid of their kids,” she said. During the pre-adoption process, Jacobs said, parents should be given accurate information about a child’s medical and psychological condition to minimize the chances of frustration later on. Under State Department policies, U.S. agencies that arrange international adoptions are subject to accreditation by the independent Council on Accreditation. Its president, Richard Klarberg, wants to tighten the standards for how the agencies screen and educate parents, notably in cases involving children with special needs. “Our goal is to force or cajole the providers to demonstrate they are providing very intense training and preparation,” he said. But he acknowledged that screening is challenging. So is post-adoption monitoring. Melanie Chung-Sherman, an adoption therapist in Dallas who was adopted from South Korea, said such monitoring would be unfeasible unless parents volunteered for it. However, Chung-Sherman said families considering adoption should be made aware of the potential challenges. Blunt pre-adoption conversations can be crucial because many of the children being adopted out of foster care and from abroad are psychologically troubled. Mental health services for adoptive families are widely viewed as inadequate — too little funding and too few professionals trained in adoption-related trauma. Among the organizations trying to fill the void is the Center for Adoption Support and Education in Burtonsville, Md. “I see many well-meaning, loving, educated parents who come in at their wit’s end,” said the center’s chief executive, therapist Debbie Riley. “They’re left on their own to fend for themselves.” By and large, advocates’ long-standing recommendations — among them a call for federal funding for post-adoption services — haven’t translated into policy. There are some new proposals in Congress aimed at providing more funding for post-adoption services, but prospects for passage are uncertain. ** — Associated Press  **

Adoptions finalized during annual Adoption Day celebration in the District

Dalontae Wilkinson knows he wants to go to college in California. One day, he said, he will be an actor, or maybe he will be a police officer. He also envisions himself volunteering to care for the elderly and disabled. The 15-year-old has many dreams that he said he is more likely to realize now that he has a family. Dalontae was adopted after 10 years in the foster-care system. He lived in several homes, wasn’t doing well in school and almost gave up hope of finding a family. “It is a very big day for me,” the tall boy, dressed in a suit and tie, told a crowd in the third-floor atrium of the District’s Moultrie Courthouse Saturday morning. “This is my father,” he said, proudly extending his arm around Kevin Wilkinson. It was a big day for the 21 Washington area families at the 27th annual Adoption Day celebration in the District. With 29 adoptions finalized, the courthouse turned into a joyous party. There were tears, hugs, flower bouquets, colorful balloons and gifts. The children took to the stage to speak about finding love. “I am glad I have a family that loves me and cares for me,” Dalontae said. Similar celebrations took place across the country as part of National Adoption Day, an event held every year on the Saturday before Thanksgiving that brings judges, public officials, families and the child welfare system together to raise awareness of the many children in foster care waiting to be adopted. The National Adoption Day Coalition estimates that 4,500 adoptions were finalized this year at nearly 400 events across the country. Nearly 400,000 children are in foster care in the United States, and of those, about 100,000 are waiting to be adopted, according to the U.S. Administration for Children and Families. “These saddest of statistics in our country give us all the more reason to be thankful for what these parents are doing today,” said District Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), who greeted parents and children at Saturday’s event. These families, she said, “are giving their children a very priceless gift. Thank you for that gift.” In the District, home to 2,797 children in the welfare system, city officials say they are looking for parents for 123 children. A majority of those children are older than 11 and will be more difficult to place before they age out of the system, said Mindy Good of D.C. Child and Family Services. “We have wonderful young people in the system who, when they talk about their aspirations, your heart just opens up,” Good said. “Some of the older kids have given up hope. These are kids who thought nobody would care for them.” Two years ago, Dalontae was one of them. But he met Wilkinson, 38, who lives in Clinton and works for the District’s public school system as a counselor. Wilkinson tutored the boy once a week, then became his foster parent until the adoption was completed. Although the process can be long and difficult, new parents say it’s worth it for the joy they feel when it’s finished. “It is so great to see them run and do things that traditional kids do. Every day feels like a bit of a great event,” said Charles DeSantis, 44, who with his husband, David McDermott, adopted two boys. When the boys arrived in their Northwest home in June 2012, they needed extra care. Lucas, now 5, was in a special school because of his cerebral palsy and couldn’t walk or talk. Andre, 3, weighed just 19 pounds. Now, Lucas is in regular school and runs around like any other boy his age. On Saturday, the brothers held tight to their parents’ hands, wearing matching navy-blue sweatshirts, as they walked on stage for their ceremonial adoption presentation. DeSantis and McDermott, who got married this year, are in the process of adopting toddler twin girls. “It doesn’t matter that they are not your biological children, they are yours,” said DeSantis, a school administrator in the District. “People really think that when you adopt from the system, you are doing something good. But in our case, we are so lucky. If it wasn’t for adoption, we wouldn’t be able to have kids.”

Reforming the path to international adoptions

It is heartbreaking that so many in the world live in such poverty that they are forced to give up their beloved children [“A ‘shameful’ record on adoption,” The World, March 25]. It is inexcusable when governments fail to help families remain united, make assistance available for orphans or craft guidelines that allow for timely and appropriate adoptions. I began the international adoption journey in 1992. It is not for the faint of heart. There are many actions, obstacles and costs. You are on an emotional roller coaster for months, sometimes years. While family and friends remain cautiously optimistic, you cope with overwhelming fears and are overjoyed once your child is placed in your arms. My daughter, Kirthi, arrived from Hyderabad, India, as an 18-pound 19-month-old at Dulles International Airport in 1994. Now she’s graduating from college. Foreign countries are right to establish protocols that protect children. People adopting internationally have to do so with the child’s best interests in mind. Here is hoping that India will be successful in reforming “a system beset by complicated rules and a competing illegal market in children” — and that other countries will follow suit. ****Karen Bisset** , Fairfax**

When orphan care goes bad: Russell Moore on why adoption is not for everyone

Some said the parents thought the children they had adopted were demon-possessed. The story was that they’d tried exorcism, and couldn’t drive the devils out. The parents say the story was nothing quite so supernatural. The children displayed severe mental and emotional trauma, they claim, to the point that they feared for the safety of their other children, so they sent them to live with another family. I can’t judge from here who’s right or wrong in the particular case of reports surrounding why Arkansas state Rep. Justin Harris (R) gave away his adopted child. I just know this story is all too familiar.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Every few weeks or so, it seems, I hear of another family on the verge of “disruption,” the term used to describe families relinquishing back to the system children they have adopted. As with divorce, in some of these situations, there is no alternative to the tragic outcome. But as with divorce, in other cases, many of the adoptions did not need the nuclear option. As a Christian, I believe every part of the church is called to care for widows and orphans. Those of us who advocate on behalf of children in need of parents, whether in religious communities or advocacy groups or in government agencies, should make clear from the beginning the high stakes involved in adoption and foster care. The only thing worse than a family shirking their duty to vulnerable orphans is a family adopting when they’re not equipped to do so after being made aware of all of the risks involved. Jesus tells us, after all, that only a foolish king goes out to a war with an army he doesn’t have. Our culture all too often fear children who have been adopted. While the demon angle of this story may or may not be fabricated, I have heard of a television evangelist suggesting that children adopted from overseas might have demons attached to them. This sort of orphan paranoia isn’t just from those who are religious. I have been told by secular “progressive” parents that they don’t want to adopt because they are afraid the child might “turn out to have something wrong with her.” These fears are unfounded, as the large numbers of well-adjusted children in American culture, adopted at all stages of life, demonstrate. But we could also easily overreact to the bias against adopted kids with a picture of adoption that is overly sentimental, gauzing over very real heartache that can come with adoption. Potential parents should be told, from the beginning, that every child adopted or fostered will be, in a very real sense, a “special needs” child. In every case of adoption or foster care, there’s a tragedy. Someone died, or someone was addicted, or someone was impoverished, or someone left. Sometimes the trauma of this reveals itself immediately—and sometimes it remains subterranean for years. What we need are not potential parents who have checked off all the potential risks on a disclosure statement. We need instead parents who are eyes-open about what could happen, and who see that what they are adopting is not a project or a cause but a child, a child with all the complications, joyful and heartbreaking, that can come with being human in a fallen universe. This means spending as much time in the pre-adoption process as good churches do in the premarital counseling process, making sure the potential parents are ate of the vows they are making, and that they are up to keeping them. This also means, though, that we support families, especially those who are raising children with difficult past trauma. The community — including church communities — can’t see the adoption story as ending when the last baby shower present is opened or when the welcoming party from the Sunday school class has left the airport. Adopting parents with difficult children need the ministry of those who will see to it that families don’t suffer alone in difficult situations, even if that just means providing ways for couples to get away for a few days to regroup or to consult with mental health professionals as they seek to love their child through some special trauma. No matter what we do, we will always have some families formed through adoption who splinter apart, just as we have families formed the more typical way who fracture. But by making sure the community sorts the merely good-intentioned from the adequately equipped from the adoption pool can help. And ensuring that we have not just one family involved in an adoption, but a network of “extended relatives” willing to help shoulder the responsibility, can bolster the family’s adoption. Adoption is a beautiful, life-giving act, when taken up by those called to and equipped for it. But it does a child no good to be brought into a family that has counted their blessings but hasn’t counted the cost. In the worst of these situations, the formation of a family can end up in an ugly torrent of blame, with parents and children and the system sometimes all demonizing each other with their words, sometimes quite literally. Children and families deserve better than that. __    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico **Like this story? Read more fromActs of Faith:**    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico I, too, thought the world was coming to an end. Here’s what ‘Kimmy Schmidt’ gets right.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Presbyterian Church (USA) changes its constitution to include gay marriage    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico San Francisco cathedral douses homeless people with water to discourage sleeping on their steps    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico

The story of an Arkansas politician who gave away his adopted child, and the tragedy that followed

The sisters were supposed to be moving out of neglect and chaos and into the stability of their forever home. For one of those girls, however, Arkansas Rep. Justin Harris’s house came to represent something very different: a temporary stopping point on the way to some place much, much worse. A series of stories by the Arkansas Times revealed that Harris — a day-care owner, a vociferous defender of his Christian faith and a prominent figure in the state’s Republican Party — put two young girls he adopted in the care of a man who later sexually abused one of them.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico More shocking still: What Harris did, unofficially giving away an adopted child, is not illegal in Arkansas. It is known as “rehoming,” a name that describes a practice more common in pet adoption. The extralegal practice is highly controversial — “a monstrous act,” according to adoption advocate John M. Simmons.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Though no one can say for sure, child advocates believe that rehoming is relatively rare in the United States. Those adoptive parents who do it, advocates say, are gambling with the well-being of at-risk children whose entire life experiences have been characterized by abandonment, separation, grief and often abuse. “There’s probably no greater trauma than thinking you have found a forever family and finding that’s not the case,” said Sandy Santana, interim executive director of Children’s Rights, an advocacy organization based in New York. “The foster kids are coming into the foster system because they have been abused or neglected. They’ve already experienced trauma; they’ve experienced separation from their birth parents.” Moving from home to home “compounds the trauma and the loss, and the grief,” Santana said. How exactly things could go so wrong for the girls once they were placed in the care of the Harris family is a study in failure at all levels. The three sisters taken in by Justin and Marsha Harris had already lived with a toxic mixture of neglect and abuse. The girls were at one point placed in the care of methamphetamine users, according to the Times. And throughout their childhood, police had documented sexual abuse in their home, which experts say can be a strong signal for potential predators.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico The scrutiny-free practice of rehoming opens the door to children becoming victims once again. An extensive Reuters and NBC News report in 2013 laid out the series of events that often plays out online, where parents use message boards and Facebook groups to find new families for their unwanted adopted children:    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Faced with the allegations before they were published by the Arkansas Times, Harris first became defensive. “It’s evil,” he told the Times. “No weapon forged against you will prevail, and you will refute every tongue that accuses you,” he added, quoting a Bible verse.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Later, at an emotional press conference, Harris placed the blame squarely on the state health services department, which, he said, refused to help when he and his wife struggled with the girls they had adopted. State officials also did not act when they learned that the Harrises had given the girls to another family, according to the Times, until it was too late.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Yet others involved in the case say that the Harrises knew the girls had mental and emotional challenges due to past trauma but insisted on adopting them anyway, the Arkansas Times reported.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Both sides agree that the Harris family was approached to adopt three girls by their biological mother. After several months with the eldest girl, who was 6 at the time of the trial period, the Harrises did not finalize her adoption due to her behavioral issues, Harris said at a news conference last week. But around March 2013, he and his wife formally adopted the girl’s two younger sisters, according to the Arkansas Times. Months later, according to the Harrises, they were struggling to cope with the mental and behavioral challenges presented by the two girls, particularly the older one, who was 4 at the time. According the Arkansas Times, people who knew the family, including a former babysitter, say that the Harrises kept the 4-year-old locked in a room and monitored her with cameras because they believed she was possessed by demons. The babysitter told the paper that the family hired “specialists” to perform an exorcism.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico A lawyer for the Harrises, Jennifer Wells, denied to the Arkansas Times that “exorcisms and telepathy” are part of the couple’s beliefs. She said that instead they used a controversial book on “therapeutic” parenting to help deal with the adopted children.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Cheryl and Craig Hart, foster parents who had taken in the two younger girls before they were adopted by the Harrises, said the state lawmaker and his wife shouldn’t have been surprised by the girls’ behavior, according to the Arkansas Times: At his news conference last week, Harris rattled off a litany of offenses that brought his family to a breaking point. One of the girls, he said, killed a family guinea pig, harmed a pet hamster, screamed in her room for eight hours straight and collected sharp rocks that she said would be used to kill the entire family, including her three adoptive brothers. The Harrises made the boys sleep in their bedroom and away from the girls. “At this point, we again reached out to DHS for help, and then we were threatened with possible abandonment charges and potentially losing our own boys,” Harris said. And so Harris chose to take matters in his own hands near the end of 2013. Marsha Harris was friends with a woman named Stacey Francis, and Justin Harris believed Francis and her husband, Eric, would be a “perfect solution” to a seemingly intractable problem. “As a dad, it was fight or flight,” Harris told KTHV in an interview. “The whole way through, we thought everything was perfect. We checked on them, took them to the doctor.”    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico There is no question, however, that it became a perfect nightmare. While caring for the two girls, Eric Francis was employed briefly at Growing God’s Kingdom, the Christian day-care owned by Harris. But by January 2014, Francis had been fired for “poor work attendance,” the Arkansas Times said. One day that same month, with Stacey Francis out of town, Eric Francis acted. By then, the 4-year old girl Harris had adopted and then given away was 6. Months later, the Francises transferred the girls to yet another family. Police only learned that Eric Francis had raped the girl because of an anonymous tip. In November, he was sentenced to 40 years in prison. Years ago, no states had explicit prohibitions against rehoming. But recently, Wisconsin, Colorado, Florida and Louisiana have passed laws addressing the practice.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Startled by the Harris case, Arkansas could be next. In the last week alone, lawmakers have filed two bills seeking to outlaw the practice, according to KTHV.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico It is a good step, advocates say, that could help protect some of the most vulnerable children and underscore the importance of preparing families for the challenges of foster children before adoption. “This is not the norm in adoption; most families do well,” said Megan Lestino of the National Council for Adoption. There are times when families are unable to cope with the challenges of caring for children adopted through the foster system. But typically, those cases should involve family services officials and a judge who makes the final decision about custody of the child, Lestino said. “In reality, when they are doing it in these illegal ways, what it is is child abandonment and neglect,” Lestino said.

Russian orphans: Reality television to the rescue?

MOSCOW — Russia has a problem placing orphans. But a federal government oversight body has a plan to fix that — with reality television. That the genre better known for the money-driven antics of Russia’s “Big Brother” spinoff, to the love triangles of the home-construction-centered “House” series, to the salacious and sometimes disturbing narratives of “Don’t Lie to Me” would be part of an official plan to open hearts and homes to abandoned children might seem a stretch. Maybe even teetering on the edge of exploitative. But Public Chamber member Yulia Zimov is sure that the “Special Forces for Adoption” series she has in mind will actually help popularize adoptions and draw in prospective parents, according to a report in Russia’s _Izvestia_ newspaper Tuesday.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Zimov told the paper there is “a whole database” of adoptive parents ready to let cameras into their homes to record their daily routines with their adopted children. The database, she said, also includes families hosting foster children. All they need now is a Russian television station willing to produce a high-quality show. The initial response from Russian television executives interviewed was positive but non-committal. Russian Public Television’s general director Anatoly Lysenko, also interviewed in the _Izvestia_ article, spoke highly of social responsibility in television programming and the idea of featuring more adoption stories, but also raised concerns about audience interest and sufficient funding.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Many Russian orphans end up in orphanages, and the reviews of those establishments are not terribly uplifting. A recent Human Rights Watch report found that disabled children especially may face violence and neglect on the part of staff. The report also touched on the phenomenon of over- institutionalization, pointing out that about 95 percent of children in the Russian orphanage system have at least one living parent.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico In recent years, the Russian government has significantly limited the opportunities for children to enter international adoptions. U.S. adoptions have been banned since late 2012, and both gay couples and single parents from countries where gay marriage is legal have been prohibited from adopting Russian children since early 2014.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico According to statistics published online by the Ministry of Education and Science, there were fewer newly abandoned children in 2013 than in 2012. But overall, the number of children in the Russian foster care system grew, by about 2.4 percent.

Congress should focus on interstate, rather than international, adoptions

_Jeff Katz is executive director ofListening to Parents, a national organization that seeks to eliminate barriers that prevent children in foster care from being adopted._ More than 100,000 American children  are in foster care and waiting to be adopted, according to the federal Children’s Bureau. And, to our great shame as a nation, more than 23,000 children “aged out” of foster care in fiscal 2012, the most recent year for which data are available. A primary reason so many children leave foster care without a family is because it is virtually impossible in the United States to adopt a child from foster care across state lines. There were only about 840 interstate adoptions in fiscal 2012, and a third of those were adoptions by grandparents and other relatives. In contrast, 8,868 children crossed international borders to be adopted by U.S. parents that year, according to State Department data. If 10 times as many children are able to cross international boundaries as state boundaries, why is Congress focused on eliminating barriers to adopting from other countries? The Children in Families First Act, championed by Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and supported by lawmakers as politically diverse as Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), is a response to the drastic reduction in international adoptions since standards dictated by the Hague Convention on Inter-Country Adoption took effect. (Such adoptions are down from 23,000 in 2004.) Those standards were put in place because of widespread abuse, including kidnapping, corruption and child trafficking in Guatemala, Cambodia, Romania, Vietnam, Ethiopia, Uganda and other countries. Barriers to adoption across state lines, however, largely result from bureaucracy and unintentional disincentives. Such barriers have been recognized for years; the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 included a provision that penalizes states that “denied or delayed the placement of a child for adoption when an approved family is available outside of the jurisdiction.” Yet no state has been punished for violating that provision. And states often require families to wait one year after their home study has been completed before they are even allowed to look at a child in another state. Barriers to interstate adoption exist because the United States does not have one nationwide child welfare system; each state has its own. Each state’s primary interest is the adoption of its residents. Each state expends resources to recruit and train prospective adoptive families, and it receives nothing in return if that family adopts from elsewhere. Effectively, if a New Jersey family adopts a child from New York, New York wins and New Jersey loses. This is an acute problem for children in metropolitan areas that straddle two or more states, such as New York City, Philadelphia, Washington or Chicago. So why is Congress focusing on increasing adoptions of foreign children and not American children in foster care? Some reasons are clear: International adoption agencies and the parents looking to adopt overseas compose a powerful interest group. Witness the federal adoption tax credit. The median cost of an international adoption is $28,000. A family with a modified adjusted gross income of up to $197,880 is eligible for a full tax credit (not a deduction) of $13,190 for expenses related to the adoption of a child. That credit is reduced as family income increases and ends for families with income greater than $237,880. Because adopting a child from foster care is essentially free, most of the benefit of the tax credit goes to people adopting the most “expensive” and youngest children. Then there is the effect of age preference: Two-thirds of children adopted internationally are age 4 or younger. In contrast, the average child in foster care waiting to be adopted is almost 8 years old. But the advantages of facilitating interstate adoptions don’t stop at families: Every dollar spent helping a family adopt a child from foster care saves three dollars in social benefits. More important, it saves a child. Children in foster care are powerless. If they are to be heard, adults must speak for them. Americans must tell Congress: If you want children in families first, then focus on the 100,000 Americans waiting in foster care for a permanent family. If you want children in families first, then remove the financial deterrents that encourage states to keep “their” families from adopting in other states. Enforce the interstate barrier provision of the Adoption and Safe Families Act. Enact legislation that would standardize home studies so they are valid across state lines, as driver’s licenses are. Make it easier to adopt a child across the Potomac River than across the Pacific Ocean. Use the power of the federal government to break down the barriers that keep kids from having what all human beings need and deserve: a family. **Read more on this issue:** Jeff Katz: Eliminating barriers to adoption Jeff Katz: Adoption’s numbers mystery Susan Punnett and Erica Rosenberg: For teens in foster care, adoption is a lifeline

The bipartisan plan to save foster care

Congress is moving toward an overhaul of the country's foster-care system, one that reflects a shift in how policymakers and child-welfare experts view the problem of keeping kids safe. It isn't yet clear what form legislation might ultimately take, and any agreement could be derailed by a dispute over the debt ceiling later this year. All the same, several lawmakers in both parties appear to be in agreement on the basic principles of a reform. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, hopes to move legislation this fall, according to a spokeswoman. The federal government has long chipped in for foster care for children whose parents are abusing or neglecting them. But some advocates  for children say the money would be better spent helping children's biological parents take care of them properly. Depending on the family, the state could pay for psychotherapy or treatment for a parent's alcoholism or addiction to drugs. Some new mothers need a nurse to talk to them about how to discipline their children without beating them, while others might just need a washer and dryer for the apartment so the kids can go to school in clean clothes. Keeping a child in her biological parents' home if possible is not only better for the child, but will save the government money, too, lawmakers say. They are talking about helping states pay for some of these other services, beyond foster care itself. "When you ask a child who has been in foster care how we can best improve the current foster-care system, often the answer will be: You could have helped my mom so that I did not have to go into foster care in the first place," Hatch said at a hearing this month. Hatch's office has been working with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who has sponsored a bill. Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Michael Crapo (R-Idaho) have also introduced legislation. Shadi Houshyar, who handles foster care for the family-advocacy organization First Focus in Washington, said the discussion on Capitol Hill was "a game-changer for child welfare." Little data on children who grow up in foster care is available, but current research suggests that focusing on keeping children with their parents will help many of them over the long term. Joseph J. Doyle Jr., an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, studied children whose homes were examined by Illinois's investigators 20 years ago to determine how foster care affected their lives as adults. He found that if a foster-care child had been visited by a stricter investigator -- those more likely to recommend a child be removed from a home -- then the child was more likely to be arrested, convicted of a crime and imprisoned as an adult. In other words, while many children must be removed for their safety, investigators often do better by kids when when they give parents the benefit of the doubt. "There's this traumatic event of being taken away from your parents, and being told that your parents are not doing the right thing for you," Doyle said. "That has to be weighed against the trauma of continued child abuse and neglect in the home." Experts also say that while you can take a child out of an abusive household, that doesn't mean you've taken the abuse out of the child. Foster care is sometimes necessary for the child's safety, said David Sanders, who is in charge of public policy at Casey Family Programs in Seattle. Beyond a safe place to live, though, children need counseling, and ultimately, a permanent family that will care for them as they grow up. Without that, Sanders said, many will repeat their parents' mistakes when they have kids of their own, perpetuating addiction, neglect and abuse to the next generation. "It's so easy to think removing children from their families is the solution," Sanders said. "That's not sufficient." Dozens of states already have waivers from the federal government allowing them to use money earmarked for foster care for other things. State officials say these experiments have been promising, and research suggests that in many cases, the benefits far outweigh the costs. A study found that one therapy program in the state of Washington, for example avoided tens of thousands of dollars in costs to the criminal justice system and victims of crimes that foster-care children would likely have committed if they hadn't participated.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico

For teens in foster care, adoption is a lifeline

“I’ll take anyone,” said Davion Only, a 15-year-old boy who had been in foster care his whole life, before a Florida congregation in October. “Old or young, dad or mom, black, white, purple. I don’t care.” The story went viral, and Davion’s plea for a family drew thousands of responses. But tens of thousands of other teens need families in the United States. In the District, nearly 300 of the 1,150 children in foster care await adoption. Of those, 100 are older than 12. When we think about adoption, we rarely think of older children. Teenagers are challenging in their own right — sometimes defiant, sullen and self-absorbed — and the perception of teenagers in foster care is that they are irredeemably troubled. But these children can be just as delightful, resilient and rewarding to parent as are younger children. More important, they can just as fully benefit from the emotional and financial stability a family offers, and they are just as much — or even more — in need of loving homes. Every year, more than 27,000 of the 400,000 children in U.S. foster care enter adulthood without the love and support of a permanent family. In most states, the cutoff age is 18, though it’s 21 in some, including in the District. The odds are stacked against these young adults when they age out of the system. For young people without families, a lack of stability and support can lead to difficulty in holding a job, finishing school and achieving financial self-sufficiency. They are likely to struggle with unemployment, incarceration, homelessness and poverty. According to a 2011 three-state study of young adults who aged out of care in the Midwest, by age 24: ●Nearly a quarter did not have a high school diploma or GED. Only 6 percent finished a two- to four-year college. ●More than a third had been homeless or “couch-surfed” at others’ homes — often for at least a month. ●75 percent of women and 33 percent of men had received public assistance to meet basic needs in the preceding year. ●More than half were not working. ●Nearly 60 percent of the men had been convicted of a crime. Most of us have the luxury of a gradual transition to adulthood. But imagine having no one invested in your future. Imagine, at 18, having to make it on your own with no backup. Imagine suddenly being responsible for your own housing, health care and life decisions with little guidance. Imagine trying to scrape resources together to attend college and having nowhere to go during breaks. One young man who aged out of foster care at 18 in Iowa described it this way: “All the support systems go away; without the security of family, many people fall by the wayside.” Having families can radically change outcomes for these kids. With his appeal, Davion may have done more than possibly find himself a permanent family. By putting a human face on the plight of older children in foster care, he may have opened hearts and minds to the possibility of adopting older children. Adoptive families stand to gain as well. We know these families are out there, but unanswered questions understandably hold many people back. It’s a profound commitment, but it doesn’t have to be made all at once. Here’s how one program works: Through the Family & Youth Initiative (DCFYI), families have an opportunity to get to know teenagers who need families, to meet other adoptive parents and adopted kids and to consider adoption in an informal setting. The approach is tailored to the teenagers’ developmental stage and recognizes the wariness that can result from repeated disappointment. In monthly events — involving activities such as bowling, cooking and scavenger hunts — teenagers and adults build relationships even before they’ve decided whether adoption is right for them. (Many teenagers decide they’re ready for adoption only once they’ve gotten to know a particular couple or individual.) The DCFYI community continues to support families that choose to adopt throughout the adoption process and beyond. Most children who are adopted are younger than 10 — as if, as the young man from Iowa put it, “there’s an age limit on love.” But getting more older children into permanent homes can dramatically change their lives and greatly improve their odds of success. ****

I was a heroin baby

I’m told the first months of my life were torture. I screamed constantly, spat out milk, and vomited all the time. I was going through withdrawal. I was a heroin baby. My mother began using drugs as a teen. By the time I was born, she’d done several stints in prison. She even gave birth to me in prison, where I lived for the first year of my life. Eventually, though, my incarcerated mother lost custody of me. I wound up in foster care, later adoption. Most people see this as a success story — government gone right. But I know differently. My biological mother, my foster parents, and my adoptive parents didn’t get the support they needed to tend to my medical and mental health needs. Though I survived developmental delays, I slipped into multiple drug addictions in my teens as my way to cope with the losses, trauma, and sorrow. Drugs were all I knew to self-medicate. I’ve been clean 20 years. But I now know that addiction is a physical and mental health disease, and not a criminal justice problem. That’s why I oppose laws like this one in Tennessee, which criminalizes pregnant women who use drugs. Supporters says measures like this protect unborn children. Some even say it’ll deter drug abuse and addiction.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday But really, the law sentences two generations at a time and continues a cycle of trauma. The incarceration rate for women has risen 800 percent in the last 20 years, and the rate of incarceration for drug crimes increased tenfold between 1980 and 2010. The number of children under 18 with a mother in prison has more than doubled since 1991. Overall, 2.3 million underage children have a parent in prison. That’s larger than the state of Delaware. It’s larger than the population of San Francisco, or of Philadelphia.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday The new law in Tennessee simply feeds a pipeline of foster care, and does nothing to treat the core problem of addiction. Further, it traumatizes mothers and their newborns, who need stability, not prison time. This law will keep pregnant women  who are using drugs away from prenatal care. A better policy would provide drug treatment, medical and mental health services, and job skills training. Now that I’ve been clean for two decades, I work across the country with women in rehab centers and with mothers in prisons, most with histories of drug addiction. One thing is for sure: babies born drug exposed are not drug-seeking addicts, and for the mothers, addiction isn’t a crime. It’s a public health and mental health concern, treatable through rehab, mental health services, and drug treatment.

Virginia’s callousness on gay adoption

Regarding the Feb. 8 Metro story “Adoption overhaul seen as anti-gay”: During 12 years as a foster parent in Arlington, I’ve seen the damage — both physical and psychological — that parents can inflict on their children. And I’ve been honored to meet foster parents of all races, sexual orientations, ages and socioeconomic backgrounds who have stepped forward to nurture these children. It takes a certain optimistic belief in the healing nature of love to bring a severely damaged child into your home. So I am sickened by the facile ability of the Virginia legislature to pass a bill that would allow private child welfare agencies to exercise a “conscience clause” to discriminate against potential foster and adoptive parents on the basis of sexual orientation. Many of the children they place enter the system through local county governments, and many of them receive government subsidies. Why are our lawmakers so quick to hand these agencies such a free pass? I know from experience that most children entering the child welfare system want a hug, attention and reassurance that they are safe. The last thing they care about is sexual orientation. With too few people willing to foster or adopt children who may suffer life-long problems, why does Virginia think it is acceptable to exclude people who are willing and able? ****Tamar Abrams,** Arlington** The writer serves on the board of the Child Welfare League of America.

Eliminating barriers to interstate adoption

_Jeff Katz is executive director of Listening to Parents, a national organization designed to eliminate barriers that prevent children in foster care from being adopted._ Why is it easier for an American family to adopt a child from across the world than adopt a foster child across a state line? State Department data show that in fiscal 2010, Americans adopted 11,058 children from other countries. By contrast, according to data from the National Data Archive on Child Abuse and Neglect, Americans adopted just 527 children from foster care across state lines that same year. To lend perspective, according to the National Weather Service, twice as many Americans are struck by lightning each year. The primary reason it is so hard to adopt across state lines is that the United States does not have a national adoption system. Instead, there is a different system in each state, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. Each jurisdiction has its own criteria for adoption eligibility and process for recruitment, approval and training of adoptive families. Worse, our multitude of systems has created profound disincentives for states to allow residents to adopt children from other states. If, for example, a Maryland family adopts a Virginia child, Maryland has essentially wasted thousands of dollars to recruit and prepare a family, with no benefit to any Maryland child. In return, Maryland will receive a child who may well have expensive medical and educational needs. Meanwhile, Virginia is likely to receive a bonus of as much as $8,000 for placing the child in an adoptive family. Maryland will get nothing. Since interstate adoption effectively has a “winner” (the state that sends the child) and a “loser” (the state that receives the child), states tend to hoard their families, greatly limiting matches for children and families across jurisdictions. Ironically, this is particularly true when a family is interested in adopting the children who are hardest to place. If, for example, a family in Indiana is interested in adopting a large sibling group, the temptation is strong for Indiana to keep them waiting, in case an in-state group were to become available, instead of matching them immediately with children just over the border, say, in Chicago. This issue is particularly significant in large metropolitan areas that straddle state lines, such as New York, Philadelphia and Washington. A group of child welfare experts who have studied programs nationwide for many years has identified a number of barriers that slow or prevent children from being adopted, including those that inhibit interstate adoption. Our forthcoming “No Barriers” report recommends common-sense and inexpensive ways to eliminate these issues, such as standardizing the certification process so that adoption home studies are accepted in all 50 states (just like your driver’s license) and changing federal funding programs so that both states share the benefit in an interstate adoption. Finding parents to adopt children is not the problem. Far more people want to adopt children from foster care than there are children available. Data from the most recent National Survey of Family Growth, released in 2008, indicated that almost 600,000 women in the United States were actively trying to adopt. Most would adopt older children, minorities or sibling groups, the very children in foster care that need families and are considered “hard to place.” Removing disincentives to interstate adoption could dramatically increase the number of children in foster care who become part of loving families. In 1997 Congress passed, with bipartisan support, the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which included strong financial incentives for states to increase the number of adoptions for their kids in foster care. Within three years, the number of children annually adopted from foster care doubled, from 25,000 to 50,000. It has remained at that level for a decade. Incentives work. There are more than 100,000 children in foster care waiting to be adopted. These children have been abused or neglected. They have no family and move from foster home to foster home, often carrying all their worldly possessions in a garbage bag. Fewer than half of these children will be adopted this year. The rest will grow another year older as they wait, wondering why no one wants them. The shame is that thousands of willing parents _do_ want them. But they are unable to adopt because of unnecessary barriers. If children can cross oceans to be adopted in the United States, surely they can cross state lines. ****

Sorry, Justice Scalia: There’s no evidence that gay parents aren’t great parents

During Tuesday's oral arguments, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan asked how same-sex marriage would harm "the institution of marriage". "I did not pick this up in your briefs," she told Charles Cooper, the lead lawyer for the defendants. "How does this cause and effect work?"    *[WSU]: Wayne State University Cooper, perhaps wisely, chose to dodge. "I would reiterate that we don't believe that's the correct legal question before the Court," he said. But Justice Antonin Scalia didn't want a dodge. He wanted an answer, And so he decided to supply one himself: Same-sex marriage may not hurt traditional marriages, but it leads to same-sex parents raising children, and that might, maybe, perhaps harm the children. Note Scalia's language. He doesn't say there's evidence that same-sex couples are bad parents to adopted children. He just says there's "considerable disagreement among sociologists." My colleague Sandhya Somashekar looked into this and found that no, there's really not:    *[WSU]: Wayne State University This is, I think, one of those situations where it actually helps to know some gay couples, and perhaps some children in foster homes, too. We do not live in a country where there are more families that want to adopt children than there are children to adopt. We unfortunately, tragically live in a world where there are children who want to be adopted, but not enough families who want to adopt them. According to the Congressional Coalition on Adoption, 400,00 children are living in the United States without permanent families -- or, as they're more commonly called by the children, "forever homes," a term that breaks my heart every time I hear it.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University More than 100,000 of these children are, right now, eligible for adoption, which means they can't go back to their biological families. On average, these children will be in foster care for three years before being adopted. Twenty percent will be in foster care for more than five years. Foster parents are, in most cases, genuine heroes. But being in the foster-care system is not easy for children, or good for them. A world in which more of these children can go to loving, stable forever homes faster is a better world. The idea that there is something so wrong with same-sex households that it would be preferable for these children to go two or four or six years without permanent parents -- an idea, again, that has little to no evidence behind it, and that is in fact contradicted by most of the evidence -- bespeaks a homophobia so deep that it is hard for me to believe it could persist long among people who actually know any children in the foster system, and who actually know many gay couples. I'll admit that this is a bit personal to me, as my nephews, whom I love very, very much, are adopted. But adoption by gay couples is one of the best arguments for gay marriage, not an argument against it. We should be begging gay couples to adopt children. We should see this as a great boon that gay marriage could bring to kids who need nothing more than two loving parents. The answer to Kagan's question is that gay marriage doesn't harm traditional marriage. But the answer to Scalia's retort is that he's got it precisely wrong: Gay marriage is good for children in the foster system.

Russian adoption ban will hit disabled children, evangelical Christian families

In the “before” photos a pro-adoption protester carried outside the Russian Parliament last week, little Anton Delgado looks bloody, bruised and listless -- baby steps away from death. In the photos from after his adoption, his face fills out and his bandages come off. Twenty-three-month-old Anton sits propped up on a couch with his adopted parents and siblings in Texas, thanks -- his adoptive mother, Vanessa, says -- to the grace of God. “I prayed for God to tell me the right time to adopt,” said Vanessa Delgado, who met her husband, Jason, at church and regularly quotes Scriptures in her blog posts. “Then I saw a picture of Anton on Facebook, and I knew, 'That’s my son.'” Russia’s ban on U.S. adoptions brokered heartbreak for many would-be parents and their adoptive children last week. But the law may hit one community especially hard: evangelical Christians, who in the past five years have begun adopting in droves. Adoption statistics are not broken down by faith, but agencies have seen a strong uptick in adoptions from impoverished countries since mega-preachers such as Rick Warren took up adoption as a religious issue five years ago, said Susan Cox, vice president of public policy for Holt International, one of the world’s largest international adoption agencies. A number of evangelical “adoption ministries” emerged in the past decade, Cox said. Hope for Orphans, a branch of the international nonprofit Family Life, began setting up orphan ministries in local churches in 2003. Denver’s Project 1.27 (from James 1:27, “look after orphans and widows in their distress”) promotes the adoption of foster children in the U.S. system. Reece’s Rainbow, another “adoption ministry,” pairs families with children who have Down syndrome children and lack proper care in their home countries. The movement reached a head in 2010, during what one Wall Street Journal op-ed called “adoption season for Evangelicals.” That spring, Rick Warren, the powerhouse preacher behind California’s 22,000-person Saddleback Church, made adoption the subject of one of his popular civic forums. Two months later, prominent evangelical theologian Russell Moore -- himself the adoptive father of two boys from Russia -- penned a lengthy cover story for Christianity Today on “why every Christian is called to rescue orphans.” Calls such as this one led to an uptick in adoptions from poor African countries such as  Ethiopia, said Cox, the adoption agency spokeswoman. They also led many families to disabled children like Anton, who risk neglect and abandonment in societies like Russia’s. Anton has a rare condition called epidermolysis bullosa, which means his first layer of skin is not attached to the second. Something as small as rubbing or scratching can make his skin slough off, and Anton’s fingers fused together during the sub-par treatment he got in Russia. He spent the first year of his life in a hospital after his parents abandoned him. He was born as one of two twin boys to a surrogate mother, but when his biological mother saw his photo, she only wanted the other boy. Ironically, another photo of Anton convinced Jason and Vanessa Delgado to adopt him. The couple has two biological children -- Kenya, 6, and Judah, 23 months -- but lost their conjoined twins Melody and Madison in November 2008. Since then, Vanessa wanted to adopt another special-needs child. “Adoption is a beautiful gift,” she said by phone from Fort Worth, where her kids yelled and played in the background. “God adopted us through Jesus when we did nothing to deserve it. It’s a beautiful picture of the Gospel.” But since Putin signed the adoption ban last week, the Delgados and other adoptive parents have begun to wonder what will happen to the disabled children left behind. According to The Promise, a London-based non-profit group that promotes early childhood education in Russian orphanages, more than 200,000 children in Russia are currently institutionalized. On Facebook and Blogspot, where an entire mommy-blog community has grown around adoption ministry, parents gathered to share laments and prayers. Many posted before- and after-adoption photos of their disabled children. Cross-eyed James Ivan now has glasses and regular therapy. Anya, a chubby Down syndrome baby with bloody scars on her ankles, now dances ballet and plays with her three siblings. Amy Livingston, a "religious but not preachy" mother of four in Westminster, Md., posted pictures of her daughter Polina, who was adopted from Russia earlier this year. In the first photo, Polina stares off-camera, slack-jawed and empty-eyed. In the second, she smiles until her cheeks dimple, a big purple bow in her hair. “When my husband and I met Polina, she didn’t smile or want to be touched,” said Livingston, who suspects her Down syndrome daughter was hit and otherwise abused in her orphanage. “Now she’s very affectionate … she’s so smart. She’s a sponge.” In Russia, six-year-old Polina would have been transferred to a mental institution soon, Livingston said; according to The Promise, that means no education, minimal therapy and little human interaction. Now she’ll start normal kindergarten in January, and her mother hopes she’ll one day go to college and maybe live on her own. “Those kids are thriving now,” Delgado said. “They have opportunities they never would have had in the orphanage. So the ban is absolutely devastating -- I pray it will be lifted.” In the meantime, babies such as Anton Delgado will go to their weekly physical, occupational and speech therapy appointments. Vanessa Delgado says her son will start feeding therapy soon, to get off the feeding tube he needs now, and later enroll in preschool. Someday, maybe, his frequent skin infections will settle enough for Vanessa to relax her insane cleaning regimen: changing his sheets every morning, bleaching the tub before he gets in it and wiping the bathroom with Comet, bleach and vinegar after he gets out. On Jan. 16, Anton will celebrate his first birthday in the United States. His adopted brother, Judah, also turns two that day. "To come from such a tragic beginning, and now have a brother his own age?" Vanessa Delgado said. "God is such a redeeming God." But how Russia will redeem the rest of its orphans, only God can say.

In Md. governor’s race, Brown promises to reduce the number of children in foster care

Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Anthony G. Brown is pledging to reduce the number of Maryland children in foster care by 1,000 if he is elected governor, using an “aggressive” public-service campaign and more visible profiles of those eligible for adoption on a state Web site. Brown, Maryland’s lieutenant governor, wants to spend $3.5 million a year on housing for young adults moving out of foster care and hopes to usher in a new philosophy of service delivery among child-welfare workers. His proposals are contained in a plan released Thursday that makes clear how personal this issue is for him. Thirteen years ago, Brown writes, he adopted a son. “When I look at Jonathan, I see so much promise and possibility, and I’m reminded of the positive impact of opening your home and heart to a child who needs you in their life,” Brown says. Brown is competing against Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler (D) and Del. Heather R. Mizeur (D) in the June Democratic primary. All three candidates have been rolling out policy initiatives in an effort to distinguish themselves from their rivals. As of last year, there were 5,848 children in foster care in Maryland. Brown says in his plan that he will reduce that number to 4,858 by the end of his first term, in 2018. He proposes obtaining a federal waiver in order to spend child-welfare funds flowing to the state more creatively, including on statewide mentoring networks to support families who have adopted children and to assist youths making the transition from foster care to adulthood. Brown notes that youths aging out of foster care face a significant risk of homelessness. The $3.5 million a year he promises to spend would be used to construct new housing and retrofit previously utilized buildings. Some money would flow through nonprofit groups, he says in his plan. Brown also says he will usher in a “trauma-informed” delivery system among child-welfare workers. Under that philosophy, decisions about placement of children in foster care would be guided by the goal of reducing the stress in their lives, he says.

Community of Hope’s Healthy Start program offers a lifeline to new parents

**Hope** wasn’t sure she wanted another stranger looking over her shoulder. Once a ward of the state, Hope grew up in foster families. Strangers dropping into her life was bad enough. And when they dropped out? Sometimes that was even worse. “Once I get used to you, I get used to you,” said Hope, 25, who last year was living in a District homeless shelter and expecting a child. “So when you leave, it’s kind of hard for me. I’m used to people coming in and out of my life. Once I get used to you being here, I expect you to stay here.” Could **Abayea Pelt** promise to be there for Hope, for her partner, **Kirk** , for their baby, **Wynter Rose**? Abayea is the family case-management coordinator for Community of Hope’s Healthy Start program. Funded by the Bainum Family Foundation and the District’s Department of Health, Healthy Start was launched in February to provide prenatal and postnatal support for struggling D.C. residents facing what is both the most natural thing in the world and one of the hardest: having a baby. Community of Hope, a partner in The Washington Post Helping Hand, offers prenatal services at its Conway Health and Resource Center in Southwest and its Family Health and Birth Center in Northeast. Once the baby is born — and for at least the first six months after that — Healthy Start counselors such as Abayea make weekly home visits. They’ll keep in touch with participating families for three years. Home visits cover basic baby care, the importance of immunizations, social and emotional development, and brain development. “We talk about the importance of holding your baby, that it’s impossible to spoil a baby that’s under 12 months by holding them too much,” Abayea said. For many new moms and dads, the Healthy Start program is a way to learn parenting skills they may not have been exposed to when they were little. It can help kindle the spark of empathy that may have been missing in their own childhoods. “I think the vast majority of the parents we’re working with, even if they didn’t have great experiences growing up, they want something better for themselves and for their families,” Abayea said. The moms face challenges. Many, like Hope, have struggled with housing instability. “A lot of our moms, especially homeless moms, tend to be pretty isolated, which can lead to depression and intensifying postpartum depression,” Abayea said. And what’s hard on the mom can be hard on the child. Hope is fortunate. She and Kirk are building a life together. Together, they found an apartment in Northeast. The city’s rapid rehousing program helps with the rent. Hope works full-time at a Taco Bell in Prince George’s County while Kirk stays home with the star of the show, Wynter Rose. “You’re going to have problems regardless,” Kirk, 27, said of the day-to-day struggles of being a new parent. “Getting through those problems, and still being there, is what makes you a better parent. The baby knows their parent is there and has got their back.” At the beginning, Hope was skeptical about Healthy Start. She has been involved in so many well-meaning efforts. But she came to look forward to Abayea’s Tuesday night visits. “We talk about the baby,” Hope said. “We also talk about ourselves, too, our mind frame. If I’m depressed or down, we’re not going to get nowhere.” Hope added, with a laugh: “I got mad when she told me it was going to be every two weeks now. She’s been here ever since Rose was born. I like that bond.” When I visited Wynter Rose — her name celebrates her January birthday — the 10-month-old was wearing a polka-dot onesie and an expression that revealed curiosity. She crawled across the carpeted floor like a pro. She stood, then took a few tentative steps before dropping on her diapered bottom. Did that count as walking? We decided it did and all broke into applause. This baby wants to go places. I asked Abayea how Community of Hope will measure the success of Healthy Start. “If we can move that mom from being standoffish with the baby and not wanting to hold the baby to bonding and cuddling, if they make a decision to breast-feed, if they turn away from parenting models they were used to before and turn to things that are positive and nurturing — those are things that we consider successes,” she said. You can help achieve these successes. Your tax-deductible gift to Community of Hope will fund programs that aid homeless families in the District. To give online, visit posthelpinghand.com. To donate by mail, make a check payable to “Community of Hope” and mail it to: Community of Hope, Attn: Helping Hand, 4 Atlantic St. SW, Washington, D.C., 20032. **Twitter: @johnkelly** For previous columns, visit washingtonpost.com/johnkelly.

Maryland tries to strengthen foster care for gay and transgender youths

Maryland officials are taking steps to create a more welcoming foster-care system for gay, bisexual and transgender children and adolescents, including screening homes for possible bias and providing sensitivity training to case workers. The policy directive issued this month by the state Department of Human Resources prohibits conversion therapy and urges foster parents of transgender children to call them by their preferred pronouns and to allow them to dress and groom accordingly. “We want to be prepared to be able to support the children along their journey in a way that’s supportive and not punitive,” said Rebecca Jones-Gaston, executive director of social services in the HR department, which oversees the foster-care system in partnership with county agencies. There’s no data on how many LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) youths are in Maryland’s foster-care system. Nationally, advocates say such children and adolescents are more likely to be mistreated by their foster families. Many end up leaving those families and living on the street. In Maryland, those who work with LGBT youths tell the story of a transgender girl who ended up prostituting herself to survive on the street after she was placed in an all-boys home whose operators forced her to identify as a boy and where other teens bullied her. An effeminate gay boy was kicked out of his foster home, and his foster parents paid him $25 to $50 a week to return only during case-worker visits. A bisexual teen who came out to her foster parents says they have refused to look her in the eyes since. “They are already traumatized; they have experienced severe neglect or abuse from the people who are supposed to love and protect them unconditionally,” said Ann Marie Binsner, executive director of Court Appointed Special Advocates of Prince George’s County, a nonprofit organization that advocates for foster children. “When they come into foster care, they shouldn’t continue to feel that neglect or that rejection because of their sexual orientation or their gender identity. We should be the ones protecting them from that.” Maryland has contracted with the Human Rights Campaign advocacy group to start training social-service workers in September, beginning in Prince George’s. The training includes instruction on recognizing subconscious bias, proper language to use with LGBT youths, and how to normalize being gay or transgender. “It comes down to education and talking to folks about what acceptance looks like,” said Alison Delpercio, deputy director of the Children, Youth and Families program at the Human Rights Campaign foundation. “When you talk to parents about that and help them understand even if they have the best interest of children in mind, expressing disgust or disapproval for a young person’s LGBTQ identity is harmful, and it’s the exact opposite of what they are trying to do,” she said, using the term for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning. Maryland state officials say they haven’t gotten pushback against their new policy, including from religiously affiliated foster-care providers. At an Annapolis hearing last winter on a bill that would have required case workers to screen foster-care placements for possible discrimination, an official with the Christian Arrow Child and Family Ministries told lawmakers that it was already making sure lesbian or gay teens were not being placed with parents who adamantly opposed homosexuality. The Human Rights Campaign says 21 states have policies or laws barring discrimination against foster youths based on sexual orientation. Fourteen extend those policies to transgender children. Maryland’s new policy does not go as far as those in some other states. For example, it does not require that all foster parents undergo training on working with LGBT youths, as is the case in California, Illinois and New Mexico. Since 2010, the District has required case workers to undergo LGBT cultural competency training and recruited more than 30 foster homes that are specifically willing to take in those children. Ruby Corado, a longtime transgender advocate who runs an emergency shelter in the District, said she houses LGBT kids from all over the region who struggled in foster homes where they were made to feel mentally ill or damaged because they defy gender norms. “If they are coming and want to plump their eyebrows, instead of making them feel like something is wrong with them, I celebrate it,” Corado said. Ciera Dunlap, who supervises case managers at the Youth Empowered Society drop-in center for homeless youths in Baltimore, said that about half of the former foster children they work with are LGBT. Dunlap met one transgender girl who had cycled through homes in which parents tried to force her to act like a boy. Other foster children would bully her, Dunlap said, and at one point, the foster-care system placed the girl in a home that was supposed to be boys only. The teen is now incarcerated for soliciting sex — which is not uncommon among homeless transgender youths. “It’s the same cycle over and over again,” said Dunlap, who for a time was homeless and in the foster-care system herself. Maryland’s new policy directive says transgender children will no longer be placed in all-boys or all-girls homes that don’t match their gender identity. Antonio Morrell, 21, entered the foster-care system when he was 16 because relatives who raised him in Prince George’s were too ill to continue caring for him and his brother. In his first placement, Morrell concealed his bisexuality after hearing his foster parents express bias against gay people. “They would say homophobic things watching television: ‘I can’t believe they are showing gay s--- on the television.’ They’ll say to the nieces and nephews, ‘I’m not going to raise you to be a f-----,’ ” said Morrell. “That definitely pushed me back. I thought, ‘I can’t come out to these type of people.’ ” He left that home after a few months. The next family to take him, Morrell said, had discriminatory attitudes, too. At age 18, Morrell found a welcoming home with a gay foster parent, who treated him as a son and asked him what took him so long to come out. Morrell aged out of the foster-care system in January. He lives in Bladensburg and works as a youth advocate for Prince George’s but remains close to his last foster parent, whom he calls Dad. Morrell said the right placement can make a huge difference for LGBT youths. “They are not busy or distracted thinking about the next place they are going to sleep, the next meal they are going to have, or if they have to deal with abuse when they go home,” Morrell said. “They actually strive well [at] home and become very successful by the time they age out.” Read more: **Transgender at 9: Is it a big deal that Tyler uses the boy’s bathroom?** **This coach knows something about breaking gender barriers **

The real reason Russia wants to ban adoptions by ‘dangerous’ American families

When President Vladimir Putin signed a law this week banning U.S. families from adopting Russian children, it's hard to imagine, as an American, that he was thinking of the 46 pending adoptions he canceled. The nearly four dozen Russians orphans were within sight of a home and family, only to have them taken away as part of the ban that is widely seen as political retaliation against a U.S. law targeting Russian human rights abusers. It's also hard to imagine that he was thinking of the on-average 1,000 Russians adopted annually into American homes, a reprieve both for the children and for Russia's notoriously harsh and over-burdened orphanages. Putin is many things, but he does not appear to be a crazy person. Despite his anti-American leanings, he has seemed shrewd enough to cooperate with the United States when it suits him and to avoid unnecessarily alienating the world's richest and most powerful country. The move is widely seen as political retaliation against the U.S. “How else can we strike [the Americans] where it hurts?” Russian political analyst Alexei Makarkin told the Moscow News. “If they found our soft spot with the Magnitsky Act, we found theirs.” Still, why sign a law that seems so clearly balance-negative for Russia, a law that, as The Post's Will Englund paraphrased internal Russian opposition, "punishes orphans more than it does American politicians and that it looks like a defense of corruption while unavoidably drawing attention to the sorry state of Russian orphanages." Is there something more to the ban than childish foreign policy? Could there be domestic considerations as well? As it turns out, the ban on American adoptions is remarkably popular in Russia. A new Russian survey finds that 56 percent support the ban and 21 percent oppose, a ratio of almost three-to-one. The support seems to stem from a belief that American families are dangerous, cruel, and at times violent to their adoptive Russian children. More than half of respondents who want to ban American adoptions cite either hostile American families or the fact that some adopted Russians have died in the U.S. A much smaller number say that Russian children would be best served by keeping them in their home country. A still- smaller minority, about 10 percent of those who support the ban, say that U.S. families want to adopt Russian children for free labor or to sell their organs. A number of Russians also say that Americans like to adopt from Russia because the Russian adoption system is cheaper and less cumbersome, although in fact the Russian adoption process is both expensive (about $50,000 per child, maybe twice the rate in China) and burdened by new regulations imposed in 2006. The Russians who support the ban are more likely to be older, rural and lower-income. Their answers are consistent with a version of Russian nationalism that sees the United States as a violent, dangerous place. That view has been popularized in films such as 2000's "Brother 2," in which a vigilante Russian man must rescue fellow nationals from decaying American cities ridden by crime and corruption. Despite the popular Russian view that adoptive children will be mistreated in the United States, actual cases have been rare. But they are also widely reported in Russia. In the U.S., those of us who have heard of Chase Harrison know him as one of the victims of a tragic but extremely rare phenomenon of parents mistakenly leaving their children in parked cars. In Russia, Harrison is known first as a Russian orphan, born to the name Dima Yakovlev, who was killed by his stereotypically negligent American adoptive parents. His death sparked such outrage that, years later, the Russian legislature named its adoption-banning bill the Dima Yakovlev Act. These perceptions of the United States are out of sync with the facts. In truth, a child is far likelier to die of abuse or neglect in Russia than he or she is in the United States. Since 1998, tens of thousands of Russian children have been adopted into the U.S.; a total of 19 adoptive Russians have died. In Russia, 1,220 adoptive children died during a period of the same length. And that's assuming that the child gets out of the foster system in the first place, which still holds more than 100,000 Russian orphans. Of those orphans, 80 percent are "social orphans," whose parents have turned them over to state care because they were unable to care for them. There's no way to really know whether or not Putin shares the belief of so many Russians that American families are likely to be dangerous and violent, and that Russian children are better off in packed orphanages. This view of the world, in which Russia is portrayed as safe and prosperous while life in the U.S. is seen as dangerous and undesirable, just happens to be good for both Putin's approval and the national self-esteem of millions of Russians, a sort of psychological escape hatch from two decades of stalled development and national humiliation. (Update: Miriam Elder, the Guardian's great Moscow correspondent, points out that Russian state media is also pushing the narrative that American homes are dangerous places.) Once again, Putin has shown a style of rule that seeks to harness Russian nationalism, even if that comes at the cost of the well-being of a few thousands orphans.

‘I’ve always wanted a place to call home’

When she was 7, D.C. social workers removed Jamie Danetta Smith from her then-drug- and alcohol-addicted mother and placed her intoa child-welfare program. For 12 years, Jamie was shuffled among seven foster families in the District and Maryland, hoping each time that she would find a home. Twice, it almost happened. Jamie was paired with one prospective adoptive family, but it wasn’t a good fit. Then about three years ago, another family showed interest. But that adoption fell through after Jamie learned that she was pregnant. Now, at 19, Jamie finally has found parents who not only want her but also fell in love with her son, William, an energetic, McDonald’s-loving, Elmo-watching toddler who likes scribbling on his bedroom walls. In ink. On Saturday at D.C. Superior Court’s 28th annual Adoption Day ceremony, Jamie will be the oldest of the 38 children and teenagers whose adoptions will be formalized. Jamie found her new family in part from an effort by the D.C. Child and Family Services Agency to facilitate adoptions for more teens and young adults. The goal is to link the youngsters with families before they turn 21, age out of the system and have to live on their own. Now, Jamie said, she finally has a place where she belongs — for good. “I’ve always wanted a place to call home, especially for the holidays,” she said. “It’s permanent living. It’s where I feel welcomed.” In the District, of the 93 children and teens waiting to be adopted, 15 are between the ages of 18 and 21, according to CFSA. That’s more than double from 2010, when there were only six. Youth advocates say infants and younger children are the most sought after by adults looking to adopt. Children 10 and older have a more difficult time. Charelia Bazemore, a supervisor with CFSA’s adoptive and foster parent program, said she recently met with a couple who wanted to adopt an infant because the mother wanted to hear a child say “Mommy.” But Bazemore implored the prospective parent to think of older children. “They can say ‘Mommy, too’,” Bazemore advised her. Teenagers and young adults, Bazemore said, still need parenting, still need someone to love them unconditionally as they grow into adulthood. And for some parents with active lifestyles who don’t have time for day care or diapers, an older child is preferable, Bazemore said. “They need someone who will invest in their dreams and goals, someone who will look after them when they return home from college, to teach them how to pay bills or buy their first home,” Bazemore said. Jamie met her “mommies,” as she calls them, Meg Gibbon and Angela Pelletier, three years ago through Family and Youth Initiative, a D.C. nonprofit program that focuses on uniting prospective adoptive parents with teens in foster care. Gibbon, 47, a former high school teacher who now works as an actuary, and Pelletier, a 43-year-old lawyer, said they focused on adopting a teenager because teens are at risk of never knowing what it means to grow up in a family environment. For Jamie, in addition to a home, there are plenty of little things she’s appreciated. She’s been able to ditch the eyeglasses she’s worn most of her life after Gibbon showed her how to wear contact lenses. And Pelletier is teaching her to drive. “There are all these loving cliches out there like ‘It takes a village,’ but there really is a need,” Gibbon said. Some of the couple’s friends questioned their decision to adopt a teenager, who could be unpredictable, especially when there are many parents who are frustrated with their biological teens. The difference, Pelletier said, is that she and her wife met Jamie as a teen, whereas biological parents are often shocked and frustrated when their sweet, loving child turns moody and rebellious. “See, we’re not surprised. We already know what type of teenager she’s going to be,” Pelletier said, laughing. In 2011, the couple moved from Arlington County to a four-bedroom house in Northeast Washington near Gallaudet University, where, they said, as a same-sex couple with a multiracial family, they could blend in more with the diversity of the neighborhood than in Northern Virginia. “We wanted to set ourselves up for success so we wanted to be somewhere where we weren’t unusual and we weren’t judged,” Gibbon said. Before the adoption process was finalized, Jamie spent a year living with Gibbon and Pelletier on the weekends to make sure everyone got along. Jamie also keeps in daily contact with her biological mother but said her mother is still not able to take care of her. It hasn’t all been easy. More recently, Jamie admits that adhering to Gibbon and Pelletier’s rules has been challenging, including the “quiet time” rule that means by 9 on weeknights, no phone calls and everyone settled in their bedrooms. That was a source of frustration. “Yeah, I got heated. But we worked through it,” Pelletier said. “We set rules in place for a reason, and, as a teenager, Jamie has to butt up against that,” Gibbon said. Some teenage problems are universal. Pelletier says her friends who have teenagers have the same issues they have with Jamie. “How do we get them to load the dishwasher?” she laughed. Jamie, sitting nearby, rolled her eyes. “We are this safety net,” Gibbon said. “The reality is you are changing the landscape of a young person’s life. They will have a reaction to that. There will be days that they will be annoyed by us loving them.” Jamie said it’s a little annoying when each day, Gibbon or Pelletier asks how her day went. She admits that she’s not used to the attention. “I know they love me,” Jamie said, “and I know they ask because they love me. But every day? Really?” Gibbon and Pelletier said now that they have a teenager and a grandchild, a Great Dane mix and two cats, they have no plans for additional children. Pelletier added, “I think our family is complete.”

Russia’s adoption ban says much about Putin

_David J. Kramer is president of Freedom House, where Arch Puddington is vice president of research._ In a display of callousness unusual even by Vladimir Putin’s standards, Russia eliminated the possibility of a better life for thousands of orphans last week when Putin signed into law a ban on adoptions by Americans. The law is named for Dima Yakovlev, a Russian child adopted by U.S. parents who died after being left in a truck in the heat in Herndon. That case, and 18 other cited instances of Russian adoptees who died in the care of American parents, are tragedies. But the vast majority of the nearly 60,000 adoptions by American couples over the past two decades have enabled Russian children, some with severe disabilities, to lead happy lives. Many American commentators have described the Yakovlev act as a response to recent U.S. legislation cracking down on Russian human rights abusers. Such analysis is deeply flawed and, insofar as it is shared by U.S. policymakers, will contribute to a serious misreading of the motives and goals that drive Putin as he sets Russia’s course. The Sergei Magnitsky Act is named after a 37-year-old lawyer who was beaten, deprived of medical attention and left to die in a Russian prison nearly a year after uncovering a massive fraud allegedly committed by officials. The people Magnitsky implicated arrested him in 2008; a year after his death, several of the same officials were promoted and awarded. Last week, Russian prosecutors dropped charges against the only person formally accused in the case, meaning that Russia is holding no one accountable for Magnitsky’s death. Instead, even though he is dead, Magnitsky is being retried in the original fraud case brought against him. While the Obama administration opposed the Magnitsky Act, the measure had strong bipartisan support and President Obama signed it last month as part of legislation granting Russia permanent normal trade relations. The Magnitsky bill is narrowly tailored, calling for Russian officials involved in gross human rights abuses to be banned from entering the United States or making use of the U.S. banking system. The Yakovlev law, by contrast, singles out Russian orphans. While the legislation targets prospective Americans hoping to adopt Russians, it hurts Russian children more than anyone else. Before the Magnitsky legislation was enacted, Russian officials threatened to place U.S. officials and supporters of the legislation on a visa-ban list or to freeze their assets in Russia. Then, apparently realizing that few Americans keep assets in Russia or would regard a travel ban as punishment, they assembled a measure that adds another layer of human rights abuse by Russian officials. The adoption law is part and parcel of Putin’s strategy for preserving power no matter the cost to the Russian population. During his first stint as president, Putin moved systematically to destroy the independence of every institution that might stand in the way of his control over Russian politics: media, political parties, the business sector, civil society. Since his formal return to Russia’s highest office in May, he has launched a similar drive to destroy his political opposition as well as perceived adversaries within civil society, pushing through measures that have broadened the definition of treason, increased penalties for protesting against the government, recriminalized defamation and imposed a new round of restrictions on civil-society organizations. His prosecutors are pressing spurious charges against opposition figures and critics and conducting armed raids on their homes. Putin’s strategy also exploits anti-Americanism. Ever since Russians went into the streets in December 2011 to protest pervasive election fraud, Putin has blamed the United States for his and, by extension, Russia’s problems. He has accused America of provoking anti-Putin demonstrations and expelled the U.S. aid mission that, among other things, worked to bolster Russia’s decrepit public-health system. He has made it illegal for Russian nongovernmental organizations to receive U.S. funding if they are engaged in “political activities”; similarly, the Yakovlev law makes it illegal to serve as head of a Russian organization if one has dual Russian-American citizenship — a provision clearly targeting the 85-year-old head of the Moscow Helsinki Group, Lyudmila Alekseyeva. Putin’s anti-Americanism has also led him to back Bashar al-Assad in his war against the Syrian people so as to deny the United States a global gain. Putin has spoken of the need for a new and uniquely Russian ideology, one that stands apart from, and explicitly rejects, the values of liberal democracy. Given all this, it is heartening to see many Russians, including the foreign and education ministers, oppose this latest abuse of power. At the same time, the absence of a serious response from the world’s leading democracies is troubling. The past seven months have seen the worst deterioration in Russia’s human rights situation since the collapse of the Soviet Union. The Putin regime demonizes the United States, heaps abuse on its officials, derides its democratic values and treats the humanitarian motives of its people as suspect, while backing the murderous Assad regime. U.S. officials need to wake up to the challenge that Putin’s Russia poses. American couples deprived of the opportunity to adopt Russian children are not the only ones calling for the Obama administration to finally take a firm stand. **Read more on this debate:** The Post’s View: The Russian Duma’s ill-considered adoption bill Vladimir Putin: My vision for a better Russia Fred Hiatt: Putin turns back the clock in Russia

A Mother’s Day plea to stop equating adoption with abandonment

_Nina Easton is Fortune magazine’s Washington columnist and a Fox News analyst._ In today’s America, a single woman facing a surprise pregnancy is likely to consider just two options: abortion or single motherhood. The third choice, adoption, carries such a social stigma that domestic placement of infants has plummeted — even as the number of parents desperate for a baby grows. Birth mothers choose life, and a family, for their child. But this choice is rarely celebrated. Women routinely face family, friends and even health-care providers who think that adoption equals abandonment, according to researchers and conversations with birth mothers. “Just look at the language people use: ‘She’s giving up her baby,’ ” says Kathy Kunkel, founder of the Utah-based agency A Act of Love. “In fact, a birth mother is choosing a good home for her baby.” Birth mothers in the United States each year number in only the thousands, compared with approximately 1.2 million abortions performed annually, according to Guttmacher Institute estimates, and 1.4 million unexpected unwed births each year. Women bucking the cultural tide generally do not publicize their choice. They are much more willing to admit they have terminated a pregnancy, adoption advocates say, than to say they have placed a live newborn with loving parents. This cultural bias infuses the guidance women receive. Just 1 percent of pregnant women who seek counseling, whether at a church-backed pregnancy crisis center or a clinic where abortions are performed, walk out with an adoption referral, according to the National Council for Adoption. And as council President Charles Johnson told me in an interview: “Your decision is only as good as the information you’re given.” Russia’s recent ban on adoptions by American parents has drawn attention to the troubled state of international programs, but the U.S. adoption system is also in crisis. Reliable data on American babies placed for adoption are difficult to find. Figures from the adoption councilthat are five years old suggest that annually there are about 18,000 children up to age 2. Only some of those are newborns. A woman’s decision to carry a baby to term knowing that she will not reap the fruits of motherhood should be treated as an act of bravery and selflessness — the ultimate standards of good motherhood. How did it come to be considered an act of shame? The numbers offer some insights. Domestic adoptions peaked in 1971 at 90,000 a year — and began a dramatic decline after the 1973 Supreme Court decision in _Roe v. Wade_ made abortion legal. Whereas abortion silences the trauma of unexpected pregnancy, birth-mothering trumpets it. Carrying a baby to term invites intrusive questions from friends and strangers alike, and admitting that you are not keeping your baby may incite hostility. Single motherhood, meanwhile, has become socially acceptable. A majority of births to women under 30 now occur outside marriage. Plenty of single moms carry that off, but what of those who end up in a destructive cycle of poverty, government dependency or abusive partners? The stigma of adoption even extends to some pro-life evangelical quarters, where, Johnson notes, abortion is cause for seeking forgiveness and moving on, but adoption means giving up on your faith — and your baby. During his years training pro-life counselors at pregnancy crisis centers across the nation, Johnson told me, he would invoke the names of inspiring adoptees from the Bible, including Moses, to make his case. Tears ran down Adria Anderson’s cheeks as she recounted last month — publicly for the first time — her decision to terminate her surprise pregnancy three years ago. She was too young to raise a child on her own, she explained when we met, and abortion seemed the least bad option. Now it’s a decision she will always regret. “No one ever talked about adoption,” she recalled. Anderson is helping to lead the adoption council campaign geared toward birth mothers, at IChooseAdoption.org. “I want to make sure no one has to feel the pain that I do,” she says. “I want to feel proud about the choice I made.” A full accounting of adoption as an option would not underestimate its emotional challenges — the grief and loss for birth mothers, the uncertainties for adoptive parents operating under a patchwork of state laws. But commonly held myths about domestic adoption would be dispelled. The super-secret affairs of old are largely gone; rather, birth mothers typically choose the family, and adoptive parents share letters and pictures. The baby’s future does not disappear into a black hole. Adoption should be an empowering option for young women in crisis, knowing that the people around them — family, friends, church — will respect their choice. On this Mother’s Day, I’ll be celebrating the courage of the birth mother who gave our daughter the gift of life — and gave my husband and me the greatest joy of our marriage. **Read more on this topic:** Helen Alvaré and Meg McDonnell: Why pro-lifers keep fighting abortion The Post’s View: Virginia’s assault on abortion claims a victim Outlook: Five myths about abortion

The opioid crisis is straining the nation’s foster-care systems

GREENBUSH, MAINE — Deb McLaughlin’s 3-year-old grandson climbed all over her, pleading to play trucks, restless as always. Her 1-year-old foster daughter, who had just woken from a midday nap, sat in her lap, wearing a frilly dress and an irresistible smile. At least McLaughlin doesn’t have to worry about the daily shots of methadone anymore, at least these babies no longer scream and shake for the opioids to which they were born addicted. This isn’t what McLaughlin envisioned for her empty nest years in rural Maine, trading camping and four-wheeling trips for social-worker check-ins, meetings with behavioral therapists and supervised visits with the drug-addicted biological parents who had to give up these children. McLaughlin’s daughter, who once dreamed of being a lawyer, is one of the millions of Americans addicted to opioids and one of thousands of parents whom state governments have deemed unfit to care for their own children. “It’s heartbreaking to watch a baby go through withdrawal, and then give that baby back to Mom,” McLaughin said as she prepared snacks in her blue mobile home outside Old Town, along the Penobscot River. “Because she did that to her.” More than 1,000 children are born addicted to drugs in Maine each year, many of whom end up in foster care. The two children in McLaughlin’s home were among the more than 1,800 in foster care across the state in 2016, a nearly 45 percent increase in foster children here since 2011. The trend in Maine is echoed in foster-care systems throughout the country, especially in rural areas that have been hit hard by addiction. Many are becoming overwhelmed as the opioid crisis has forced more and more children into state custody. Massachusetts experienced a 19 percent increase in children in foster care between 2011 and 2015. Ohio’s foster population has gone up nearly 10 percent, with more than 60 percent of children in the system because of parental drug abuse. The number of North Dakota children in need of foster care has gone up more than 27 percent. Foster-care experts say that as the drug epidemic has intensified during the past two years, another rush of children has entered the system. State budgets are stretched, social workers are overloaded, and not enough families are willing to provide children with temporary homes. American foster care, experts say, is in crisis. “It’s pretty much every state — except maybe four or five — that have seen an increase in the number of children in foster care,” said John Sciamanna, vice president of public policy at the Child Welfare League of America. “What you are seeing now is just a straining of the system.” The widespread and growing abuse of opioids and methamphetamines has played a significant role in reversing what had been a positive trend in the number of children needing foster homes. At its modern low point in 2012, 397,000 U.S. children were in foster care, according to data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. By 2015, that number had risen 8 percent, to 428,000, and experts say the past two years — the height of the opioid epidemic — has increased that number dramatically, although concrete data is not yet available. The progress in the early 2000s was linked to the implementation of laws meant to prevent children from languishing in foster care and providing financial subsidies as incentives to adopt, Sciamanna said, including President Bill Clinton’s signing of the Adoption and Safe Families Act in 1999. But as the increase in drug abuse affects many layers of society, it also is complicating the typical pathways to adoption. When children come from a violent home, for example, it’s a relatively straightforward decision about whether to permanently terminate a parent’s right to care for them. With drug addiction, which can be a hidden issue and can involve treatment, recovery and relapse, the decision to take a parent’s children away can be difficult and take a very long time. “You begin to look at all these various impacts across multiple systems, but I would say the child welfare system is really the canary in the coal mine of a growing crisis that’s not going to go away anytime soon,” said Wendy Ellis, a public health expert at George Washington University. Danylle Carson, a lawyer who represents children in foster care and who grew up in Maine state custody herself, said the ultimate goal is to reunite foster children with their biological parents. But that is often a lofty — and unattainable — goal. She has worked with children in rural Maine who were plucked from their schools and moved to a foster family hours away because there were no closer options. Social workers have been staying with children in hotels overnight because they can’t find a foster home. Cases have been delayed because social workers are too overworked to make all their required visits. “There are not enough caseworkers, and there is not enough funding,” Carson said as she worked inside a Lewiston courthouse, arguing that proposals to cut $140 million from the state’s Health and Human Services budget could have terrible effects across Maine. “These are signs of a system crashing.” Add to that the opioid problem. Medical research, including a 2015 study from the National Institutes of Health, has found that children exposed to opiates during pregnancy suffer from behavior and attention problems. Such children require therapy and often specially licensed and trained foster families, and states say they are struggling to recruit foster families to house them. The little girl whom McLaughin fosters and hopes to adopt suffers from hepatitis C and severe asthma. McLaughlin, who works at a therapeutic foster center, describes her 3-year-old grandson — who likes morning snuggle sessions and giggles with delight when his foster sister wakes from naps — as an “adrenaline junkie.” Instead of drugs, the toddler seeks out pain. He has a sensory processing disorder, his little body covered in bruises and scabs and his bedroom floor covered in padding because, as an infant, he would bang his feet so hard against the floor they bled. He sometimes turns violent and is no longer in group day care because he has tried to hurt his classmates. “It’s hard to see, especially your grandchild,” McLaughlin said. “It’s hard to see him go through these emotional meltdowns when he’s inconsolable. I have seen my husband near tears because his grandson is in such an emotional state.” Other foster parents similarly described hosting children who had sensory disorders, speech delays, and sleep anxieties that developed while the children were living with their drug-addicted parents. Bette Hoxie, executive director of Adoptive and Foster Families for Maine, said far more infants are entering the foster system now, in large part because of a state law that requires infants to be tested for drugs at birth if their mother is suspected of using them while pregnant, Hoxie said. Hoxie’s organization, which has a contract with the state, provides support and training to foster families, and they’ve had to boost their staffing to try to meet the growing demand; she said they field about 900 calls for help each month. Hoxie lost a son to drug addiction two years ago, and she has fostered more than 100 children in her Bangor home, including a 2-year-old who lives with her now. She also is hosting an adopted son — who is suffering from addiction — and his wife. They are working to regain custody of their young child. “I don’t think there’s been a conversation in the last year about foster families or kinship families that didn’t allude to substance abuse,” Hoxie said. The dramatic increase in the need for foster care has states scrambling. Massachusetts hired 15 people last year to recruit new foster families, according to a spokesman from the state’s Department of Children and Families. Vermont officials have begun collecting car seats for the state’s foster parents because there are so many infants and toddlers seeking refuge there. Texas passed legislation allowing religious adoption and foster-care agencies to refuse to place children in the homes of gay or transgender families in part to encourage those organizations to remain involved in fostering. And Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) introduced bipartisan legislation that would address and study the impacts of trauma on children in an effort to prevent another generation of drug-addicted parents. The number of children living in state custody in North Dakota has soared because of drug addiction, a crisis that she said has hit their Native American population particularly hard. “When we look at people who have been traumatized as children, they have a much higher rate of addiction as an adult,” Heitkamp said. To break the cycle, Heitkamp said, the nation must address the drug problem as early in life as possible. Part of that solution rests in the nation’s foster-care systems, which are seeking more families like McLaughin’s. McLaughin and her husband, a former fire chief, originally wanted to become foster parents after their two daughters left the house, saying they still had energy and love to give children. They mostly took in teenagers, whose portraits still adorn their walls. But when their daughter became addicted to opioids and other drugs, they decided to care for her young son. Then Maine, desperate for help with young children, asked the couple whether they could care for another infant. They obliged, welcoming the young girl into their family. “We definitely feel we are blessed. It’s hard work, it’s tiring work, but we feel we are blessed,” McLaughin said. “They keep us young, and we couldn’t imagine our lives without little ones running around.” Bever reported from Washington.

Homeless rates for LGBT teens are alarming, but parents can make a difference

I will never forget the father who told me, on a first date, about his transgender son, who was assigned female gender at birth but identifies as male. What stuck with me most wasn’t the fact that he had a transgender child, but the affectionate way he described his relationship with his son. He told me about how his teenager, who identified as a lesbian, came to him one night and explained that she was a he. The father told me that he didn’t fully understand at first what his child was saying, but he knew he loved him, and that was all that mattered. So he educated himself and supported his child through the transition. Not all parents are as accepting of their children. Too often, kids who come out to their parents are rejected, abused or thrown out of their home.  The study’s other findings are equally bleak: 46 percent of homeless LGBT youths ran away because of family rejection of their sexual orientation or gender identity; 43 percent were forced out by parents, and 32 percent faced physical, emotional or sexual abuse at home.  Eriksen, who is an assistant professor at Michigan State University and has a gay daughter, added that sometimes one parent is more accepting than the other and that they might kick a child out of their home to please their spouse or partner. Or parents might think that an LGBT child makes them look bad to their peers. “These attitudes can be present in any race, religion or income bracket,” Eriksen said. She said that parents who reject their LGBT child need to do some work on themselves, because the problem is theirs, not their child’s. “A good way to start is for a parent to think about how they felt when their child was first born; the overwhelming love, sense of awe, and the sense of responsibility and commitment,” Eriksen said. “My number one piece of advice is to keep the lines of communication open and keep reaffirming your love to your child.” Marcus Pizer, 19, told me that when he came out as transgender to his family three years ago, he was worried that his parents wouldn’t accept him, but those fears were unfounded. Marcus and his parents, Penny and Chuck, recently spoke with me from their home in Vermont. “I had two reactions when Marcus came out,” Penny said. “Intellectually, I felt like, ‘We love you and want you to be who you are.’ But then there’s the emotional, which is like a death, in a way, of the person who used to be.” When Penny said that her daughter “Molly” was going to be gone, I asked Marcus how he felt about his former name being used publicly. Some transgender people do not want to be reminded of the name they were given at birth. He was quick to give his permission before Penny continued. “What about the family photos, do we put them out?” Penny said. “Molly is no more, and she was very special, and now this new person is coming about, and it’s not a birth. How do you get to the point where with your loss, you’re losing the child you identified with but trying to be accepting of who they are becoming? You don’t want to look like you’re so upset, you want to be supportive, but inside you’re grieving as well. It was definitely difficult.” Each family member — Marcus has three siblings — is dealing with the change in their own way and from their own perspective. Marcus and his parents attended family therapy, and they all continue to work through their emotions as Marcus transitions. “I think that everybody has to be really honest on where they are,” Penny said. “You can’t tell anybody else how they should do their own process.” Two years ago, Marcus went to his parents and said he wanted to do something to help trans youth who don’t have the support he has at home. “I’ve always recognized the privilege that I had,” Marcus said. “Talking to other trans youth online, I heard stories that were heartbreaking about how others haven’t been able to transition safely or be who they are.”  “That was a motivating factor,” Chuck said. “It was something that we felt was not being addressed adequately, so we decided to focus on that area.”  Penny and Chuck don’t pretend to have all the answers, and they are the first to admit that the process has not been easy. But their acceptance and support of Marcus was never in question. The family is now harnessing their love to help other LGBT teens who might otherwise be on the street. “If the parent is inclined to get angry, lash out at their child or kick them out of the house, they should think about how they would feel if their child were to die tomorrow. Because that could really happen if a parent withdraws emotional, physical and financial support from their minor child,” Eriksen said.

Sympathy for young illegal immigrants, suspicion for other immigrants

A new poll shows that Americans are pretty sympathetic when it comes to the influx of young illegal immigrants from Central America. More than two-thirds (69 percent) say these children should be treated with the protections of refugees rather than as illegal immigrants; 56 percent say their families are doing what they can to protect their children rather than taking advantage of Americans; and 70 percent say the children should be offered shelter and support, according to the Public Religion Research Institute poll. Just 26 percent of Americans say the children should be deported immediately.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday But even as Americans view these illegal immigrant children in this positive light, something else has happened: Their overall views of immigrants have taken a turn for the worse. I wrote last month about how perceptions of immigrants in the United States -- both legal and illegal -- had been gradually improving for decades. And that has certainly been the case.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday Here's how that looked, from New York Times polling: And from NBC/Wall Street Journal polling: Well, as the situation on the border has deteriorated, so have Americans' views of immigrants. According to the PRRI poll, fewer than half of Americans (49 percent) now say immigrants "strengthen" the United States with their "hard work and talents." Forty-two percent now say they are a "burden" because they are a drain on jobs, housing and health care. Less than three months ago, that mere seven-points split was as much as 32 points. The double-digit drop in the percentage of Americans who view immigrants writ large as strengthening the United States is the biggest we've seen in recent years. The question is whether this is part of a new normal or merely a momentary reaction to what has become a pretty serious situation on the border. It's quite possible it's the latter, given Americans are more likely to view immigrants today in the context of what's happening on the border, rather than in the context of legal immigration. That could explain the recent shift. But if it's the former and it sticks, that spells bad things for the prospects of comprehensive immigration reform going forward.

Russia’s ban on U.S. adoptions devastates American families

Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a bill Friday that bars Americans from adopting Russian children, provoking anguish among U.S. families that have been waiting months, and in some cases years, to complete the process. The legislation caps a year of increasing Russian hostility toward the United States, stoked by Putin but taken up with unexpected gusto by members of parliament. A series of measures has taken aim at what is perceived to be — or characterized as — American interference in Russian concerns, from political organizing to the defense of human rights. The adoption bill is seen as retaliation against a U.S. law that targets corrupt Russian officials. Passage of the legislation is a benchmark in the deterioration of Russian-American relations, and unlike some of the earlier, symbolic moves, it has real consequences. Over the past 20 years, 60,000 Russians have been adopted by Americans, and officials said the measure would block the pending adoptions of 46 children. Kim Summers of Freehold, N.J., was just weeks away from bringing home her adopted son, Preston, when the legislation hit. She and her husband adopted him on Dec. 12 and returned to the United States three days later to complete a required 30-day waiting period. “As far as we knew until this morning, he was coming home with us,” Summers said. “What’s going on has absolutely nothing to do with parenting a child. My son was looked at by 22 Russian families before I had the chance to even fathom adopting him, and none of them wanted him.” Senior members of the Russian cabinet had warned against the bill, saying that it punishes orphans more than it does American politicians and that it looks like a defense of corruption while unavoidably drawing attention to the sorry state of Russian orphanages. But Putin disregarded the warnings, seemingly pulled along by the enthusiasm for the legislation in both houses of parliament. Washington reacted sharply to the new law Friday. The State Department issued a statement saying it deeply regrets “the Russian government’s politically motivated decision.” It also expressed hope that adoptive parents and children “who have already met and bonded” would be allowed to complete adoption procedures that were initiated before the law took effect. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called Putin’s action “shameful and appalling” and said the law’s effects on thousands of Russian children would be “cruel and malicious.” He said in a statement: “I often wonder how much lower the Russian government under President Putin can stoop. But to punish innocent babies and children over a political disagreement between our governments is a new low, even for Putin’s Russia.” The issues at the heart of the U.S.-Russian relationship in the coming year are critical to the United States, primarily the continuing transit of goods into and out of Afghanistan, and Russian cooperation on Iran. So far, both topics have been kept mostly out of the fray. For several weeks, Putin appeared to be putting the brakes on the adoption ban. He raised questions about it at his annual news conference this month, and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Science and Education Minister Dmitry Livanov, among others, called it ill-advised. But on Thursday, Putin said, “I have not seen any reason why I should not sign it.” The bill has elicited strong reactions from opposition figures, who view it as a case of Russia shooting itself in the foot. Journalist Alexander Minkin, on his blog for the Ekho Moskvy Web site, described it as “cannibalistic.” With Americans placing sanctions on certain corrupt Russian bureaucrats, he wrote, Moscow strikes back by punishing its own orphans. The move abruptly cancels a painstakingly negotiated bilateral agreement regulating American adoptions of Russians. That agreement went into effect just weeks ago. But Putin has described the agreement as ineffective and a case of “sham stupidity.” The adoption law passed the lower house of parliament by a vote of 420 to 7 and passed the upper house unanimously. Putin began stepping up his anti-American rhetoric a year ago, as he was running for president. He accused Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton of fomenting the street protests that took place in Moscow over the winter. Parliament then passed a law requiring nonprofit groups that receive foreign funds — which, in Russia’s case, primarily means American funds — to register as “foreign agents.” This fall, Putin ordered the U.S. Agency for International Development to close its Russian operation. All year long, politicians in parliament and the Kremlin railed against the prospect that the U.S. Congress would pass a law in honor of the late whistleblower Sergei Magnitsky, targeting the corrupt Russian tax and police officials who had a hand in his case. After Congress passed the legislation, and President Obama signed it into law this month, Russia’s response was the adoption measure. In a statement, State Department spokesman Patrick Ventrell said: “We have repeatedly made clear, both in private and in public, our deep concerns about the bill passed by the Russian parliament. . . . The welfare of children is simply too important to tie to the political aspects of our relationship.” Putin said Thursday that he will issue decrees intended to improve conditions in orphanages and make adoption more palatable for Russian families. He noted approvingly that in some of the most violent regions of the Caucasus, children of those who have died are taken in by relatives, in contrast to the rest of the country. The Russian government’s ombudsman for children, Pavel Astakhov, said the country can phase out all its orphanages in five to seven years. He said it should ban all foreign adoptions, not just those by Americans. Ilya Yashin, a young opposition leader, said in a tweet that Astakhov’s position represented “cynicism beyond limits.” The newspaper Novaya Gazeta said 100,000 people had signed an online petition against the bill. The Putin-appointed Human Rights Council said the legislation punishes the innocent and opens up new ground for corruption. Sarah Mraz, director of international adoption programs at Wide Horizons for Children, said the Massachusetts-based child-welfare organization spent the day counseling families. “It has been very difficult for families to understand that politics can supersede the importance of a child to have a family,” she said. “It’s devastating to the families.” The legislation would still allow Russian children to go to the United States if they are taken in by relatives, and critics suggested Thursday that interested couples would find ways to “buy” family connections. The Russian legislation also draws even more attention to the Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act. That law places financial and visa sanctions on officials connected to the arrest, imprisonment and death of Magnitsky, a lawyer who unearthed a $230 million tax fraud and was subsequently arrested by the same police officers who he said were carrying out the fraud. He died in jail in 2009. According to his supporters, he had just been given a severe beating. That tax fraud involved senior officials of the tax agency as well as police. Hermitage Capital, Magnitsky’s client, has tracked millions of dollars of overseas financial transfers by those officials and uncovered other, similar cases. A Moscow judge on Friday acquitted prison doctor Dmitry Kratov, the only person to face trial in the Magnitsky case, finding no evidence of negligence leading to the lawyer’s death. The acquittal was requested by the prosecution after Putin said publicly a week ago that “no one tortured Magnitsky, and he died of heart failure.” “There is no doubt that people responsible for Magnitsky’s death are being protected by the president of Russia,” the Britain-based Hermitage Capital said in a statement Friday. The American law named for Magnitsky struck a nerve with Russian officials, who have denounced it. Legislators named their retaliatory bill the Dima Yakovlev law, after a Russian toddler who died in Virginia when his adoptive father left him unattended in a locked car on a hot July day. The father was later acquitted of charges of involuntary manslaughter, sparking strong Russian criticism. According to the U.S. Embassy in Moscow, 19 Russian adoptees have died in the United States in the past 20 years.

Summer Book Club: ‘Half a World Away’

By Cynthia Kadohata.   Ages 8 to 12. You may know kids who were adopted from other countries. Whether they came from China, Guatemala or Ethiopia, they probably arrived as babies or toddlers with no memory of their birth country. Jaden, the main character in “Half a World Away,” came to the United States from Romania, a country in Eastern Europe. But he was not a baby. At 8 years old, he sort of remembered his mother, who left him at a group home when was 4. But he clearly remembered living with 12 people in one room. He slept on the floor, and there was little food to go around. When Penni and Steve brought him to the United States, Jaden had plenty of food and his own room. But those things, and even the love of his adoptive parents, didn’t make him happy. He was miserable and seemed to make those around him miserable, too. Now, four years later, Penni and Steve announce they plan to adopt again. This time, it’s a baby from Kazakhstan, in Central Asia. Jaden is sure that his parents are looking to replace him, the failed son. He is forced to go with them to Kazakhstan to bond with the baby before they bring him home. The trip is going to be dreadful. But the long and bumpy journey teaches Jaden that he has a crucial role to play in the adoption. He can embrace this growing blended family. Or he can wreck Penni and Steve’s plans and the baby’s chance for a better life. **— Christina Barron  ** **** **“Kimchi & Calamari”** by Rose Kent is the story of a boy named Joseph who is born in Korea but adopted by an Italian American family. When an eighth-grade teacher assigns a project on family ancestry, Joseph is worried that his questions about his birth mother will upset his parents. ( _Ages 8 to 12._ ) Younger readers should try **“The Year of the Baby”** by Andrea Cheng. Anna’s family adopts a baby from China, but the baby isn’t doing well a few months later. Anna and her pals come up with an idea that may solve the problem. ( _Ages 5 to 9._ ) **** ****

How Trump changed Americans’ view of Islam – for the better

President Trump is expected to announce a ban on Muslim immigrants into the United States. However, polls conducted in the last year show that, despite his electoral success, Trump’s views on Islam and Muslims do not have wide support among the American public.   Even attitudes toward Islam itself (generally more unfavorable than attitudes toward Muslims) showed significant improvement: favorable attitudes went from 37 percent in November 2015 to 49 percent in October 2016, reaching the highest favorable level since 9/11.  So, how are these kind of shifts possible in a single year?  As on almost all issues, partisan divisions intensified during a highly divisive election year. The more one side emphasized the issue — as happened with Trump on Islam and Muslims — the more the other side took the opposite position. But there was another related aspect that intensified reaction. Because Middle East-related issues touched on Americans’ top priority issue (fighting the Islamic State ranked first across the political spectrum throughout the year), the stakes for politicians and opinion leaders were especially high. For Democratic politicians, ceding the narrative to Republicans on these issues meant losing the election battle. Everyone had a greater incentive to put forth a counternarrative, from the leading candidates, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, to President Barack Obama. This counternarrative, reinforced by sympathetic opinion leaders, added more weight to the sharp divide and may have had impact not only on Democrats, but also on independents. Sure, there are demographic trends favoring the Democrats on these issues: expanding segments of the American public — such as millennials and Hispanic, Asian, and African Americans — tend to have more favorable views on Islam and Muslims. But the impact of these trends cannot be felt in one year, which suggests that the dynamics articulated above are the principle causes. So what does this suggest about the impact of Trump’s presidency on public attitudes? There will almost inevitably be an assault on dominant narratives on both the Palestinian-Israeli issue and on Islam and Muslims. The question is: How will this play out? What’s the chance it will succeed in changing public attitudes? What could be learned from the past year? At some level, despite the uniqueness of Donald Trump, there are some similarities with the time when the administration of George W. Bush took over after two terms of Bill Clinton. In the months prior to 9/11, Bush pursued a policy that pushed against many of his predecessor’s policies. He gave more license to Israel in its confrontation with the Palestinians, lowering that issue in American priorities, and many of his supporters advocated a view of Islam and Muslims that’s more compatible with notions of civilizational clash. But, even though Democrats were on the defensive, it’s unlikely that the effort would have succeeded without the 9/11 disaster that enabled reshuffling the political deck, and mobilized almost all Americans behind the White House in its immediate aftermath. Public support for Trump’s campaign to ban Muslim immigrants from the United States is dependent on Trump’s own popularity and policy success and on the groups and leaders who have incentive to counter that narrative. What is already clear from the presidential transition and the first few days of the Trump administration is this: Partisanship did not die, or even diminish, immediately after the election. And polls show the president starts his term with unprecedented unpopularity. Evidence suggests that during the election year, attitudes of most Americans toward Islam and Muslims improved overall precisely because Trump the candidate was seen to have the opposite view. Trump the president should have more sway. But he is starting at place where partisanship is not diminishing, and where his presidential rhetoric mirrors his words as a partisan candidate. The incentive to counter Trump’s views could not be missed in the historic Women’s March the day after the inauguration. And Trump has managed to alienate not only the media, but also many members of Congress, by attacking the Washington establishment in his inaugural speech. In this environment, the impact of narratives pushed by groups that draw empowerment directly from Trump’s success could be limited — or even generate the opposite results. We are at the beginning of the administration — and things could change quickly. However, the partisan rhetoric of the campaign is not diminishing and seems unlikely to be overturned without an extraordinary crisis; and the incentive for leaders and groups to advance counternarratives to those of Trump’s supporters remains high. The Trump era is like no other, in part because the president himself is like no other. But the very fact that he started his administration sounding more like a candidate than a president means that his ability to empower major paradigmatic shifts in American public attitudes will be limited, at least in the short term.

Nearly three quarters of Americans think the U.S. should shelter (not rush to deport) unaccompanied minors

The Republican party might favor rushing to deport the tens of thousands of migrant children that have been apprehended at the U.S.-Mexico border since the fall of last year, but the American populace does not. In fact, the vast majority—nearly three quarters—of people in the U.S. feel quite the opposite, according to a new survey released Tuesday by the Public Religion Research Institute.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday When asked what the U.S. government should do about all the children arriving alone at the U.S. border, some 70 percent of Americans said they favor offering the minors shelter and support while determining whether they were eligible to stay in the country. The results varied widely by age—82 percent of 18 to 29 year olds felt that way, but only 50 percent of those 65 years and older did. "The generational differences on these questions were enormous," Dan Cox, research director at the Public Religion Research Institute said in an interview. "No differences of opinion were more divergent than those along generational lines." Opinions, however, also varied considerably by political party affiliation—80 percent of Democrats supported sheltering the children, but only 57 percent of Republicans did. The prevailing opinion that those unaccompanied children arriving to the U.S. from Central America should be treated as refugees, not illegal immigrants, comes on the heels of the realization that more children are escaping crime ridden countries like Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador, in hopes of finding asylum in the U.S.. More than 50,000 migrant children arrived at the border this year—50 percent more than last year, and more than 250 percent more than in 2011. That influx seems to have nudged national sentiment, well, not very much. While there has been a slight shift in views of immigrants, that hasn't been reflected in any substantial change in opinion regarding immigration policy. "There is an uptick in the number of people who describe immigrants as a burden," Cox said. "But what we've found is that views on our benchmark immigration policy question have not changed." "In early July, 58 percent of Americans said they preferred a policy that allows immigrants living in the country illegally to become citizens provided they meet certain requirements, compared to identical support (58 percent) today," the survey said.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday Americans' aversion to a speedier deportation process also comes in the wake of the Republican party's announcement regarding its own plan for dealing with the rising number of children reaching the border without their parents. The GOP supports pushing through legislation that will send more National Guard troops to the U.S.-Mexico border, and force the U.S. government to more quickly process and deport unaccompanied minors. Meanwhile, the Obama administration is mulling a number of options, including the potential for granting refugee status—a means of entering and staying in the country without traveling the dangerous path through Mexico—to hundreds of Hondurans as part of a pilot program.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday While it's unclear if the national populace would support a proposal that lets more immigrants, no matter how dire their conditions at home might be, in, it appears the American public isn't nearly as comfortable sending unaccompanied minors back to Central America as the Republican party might hope.

Miss Manners: Remarks about adoptees’ birth mother best ignored

DEAR MISS MANNERS: I have two children through adoption, and am in the process of adopting the biological sibling of my younger child. These siblings were born into the foster care system. Their birth mother grew up in foster care. That, together with her family’s extreme dysfunction, led her to addiction. I have enormous sympathy for her circumstances, and have seen her weep for her losses and what her life has become. Aside from her addiction issues, she is a sweet, likable and respectful individual. While clearly the circumstances of our children’s births are not ideal, we are so grateful to have them, and I make sure to tell our children how much she loves them and how wanted they are. My problem is with people who ask me if she has heard of birth control, or proclaim that the authorities should just tie her tubes, or offer other simplistic solutions to a very complex issue. I know I have a far deeper understanding of the situation and have tried explaining some of it, but this takes time and often reveals more of my children’s stories than I might wish. Does Miss Manners have a kind and gentle response that reminds people that until they have walked a mile in her shoes, they are in no position to judge? GENTLE READER: It would be tempting to respond with something like, “Birth control? What’s that? I’ve never heard of it, either.” But don’t. Rather, Miss Manners recommends a cold “I beg your pardon, but I must remind you that are talking about the mother of my children.” That should at least confuse them enough to be rendered speechless. DEAR MISS MANNERS: Frequently when our family meets for dinner at a restaurant, we find that our mother has pre-ordered food and we’re not allowed to see a menu or make any choices. We’re middle-aged children, and our mother insists that this is the same as visiting her house for dinner, therefore she makes the choices. I’ve asked her to stop doing this and she ignores my requests. Is this appropriate host behavior? I don’t like having my food chosen for me, but am I rude to insist on ordering for myself, or is the host rude for not letting me choose? GENTLE READER: This does seem to defeat the very point of going to a restaurant, doesn’t it? Is your mother paying for the meal and therefore trying to avoid a fight over the bill while still staying within her budget? Miss Manners would ordinarily never dream of asking about money, but she is trying to eke out the rationale here. Perhaps your mother is confusing this casual family dinner with renting a restaurant party room, where one would act as host and plan the menu? As you are middle-aged children, at least one of you should set a good example by insisting on taking her out for dinner, asking her what she would like to eat, and requesting, when making the reservation, that the bill be presented only to the host. If this is not feasible, Miss Manners recommends that you give up, and either give in or start inviting the family to your house for dinner. New Miss Manners columns are posted Sundays, Tuesdays and Thursdays on www.washingtonpost.com/advice. You can send questions to Miss Manners at her Web site, www.missmanners.com. 2015, by Judith Martin

‘Half a World Away,’ by Cynthia Kadohata

The joys, pains and ever-shifting dynamics of family life prove fertile ground, once again, for Cynthia Kadohata. In her new, quietly powerful novel, which publishes Sept. 2, she focuses not on the Japanese American families of “Kira-Kira” (Newbery Medal, 2005) and “The Thing About Luck”  (National Book Award, 2013) but on the fragile triad of a boy named Jaden and his adoptive parents. Jaden’s past has left him emotionally numb, cut off from himself and others. His biological mother brought him, howling with grief and fear, to an orphanage in Romania at age 4, and he was adopted and taken to the United States at 8, weighing only 38 pounds. As the story opens, Jaden, now 12, considers himself “broken,” nothing but a troubled, older adopted child, as he’s been labeled by psychologists trying to modify his hoarding, stealing and fire-setting. Initially, the boy sees his parents’ desire to adopt another child as confirmation that he’s unwanted. As the threesome travels to Kazakhstan, though, and spends the orphanage-mandated weeks bonding with a “blank-faced baby,” Jaden begins to recall his earlier experiences and loneliness. He realizes he is the only one who truly understands this withdrawn, tiny person, and he begins to reach out to the baby and to another orphan. Jaden’s journey back to his lost self is believably fraught, but flashes of humor lighten the whole. An especially lively voice is that of the family’s Turkish driver as he opines on large suitcases, granola and the true beauty of camels. —  Mary Quattlebaum By Cynthia Kadohata Atheneum. $16.99. Ages 10-14.

I’m a white foster parent seeing racism through my black and brown children’s eyes

As a rabbi, I have made it part of my spiritual work to fight this injustice. As an Orthodox Jew, I’ve sensed prejudice at times, but never in a way that I felt harmed me personally. I’ve never directly felt the impact of systemic racism, and have usually thought about race in the abstract. That changed after my wife, our children and I welcomed two foster children of color to our family. For the first time in my life, racism has become personal. My wife and I are blessed to care for multiple foster children over the last several years. They, like our three biological children, brighten our lives. The first child we fostered was African American — a boy who came to our home when he was only a few days old. More recently, we began fostering a Latino child, a boy less than a year old. These children, like so many in the foster-care system, came to us after going through difficult personal circumstances. Frequently, children enter the foster system due to abuse, neglect, substance abuse issues or unstable family situations. It’s hard to imagine enduring what these children face. And though they were new to this world when they first became part of our home, as I’ve held each of them in my arms, I’ve sensed something that I never have with my biological, white children: They’re defenseless in the way all children are, but also susceptible to a world where they will be constantly underestimated and undervalued because of the color of their skin — a reality, of course, that’s already the obvious and routine-lived experience of countless individuals, but a revelation for me.   I have dreams for all of my children; that their potential will be realized and that they’ll have bright fulfilling lives. But these dreams are tinted by my experience as a white man. When I look back at my own childhood as a time of continuous, unthreatened growth — something that’s far less certain for my foster children of color — I see clearly now that the difference is race. One way to describe it is white privilege. Another is a journey from the ideological to the personal. I can’t ever really walk in their shoes, but by becoming part of my family, for me, they’ve changed racism from something I loathed to something I feared. I still think about race in terms of right and wrong, but now I also think about it in terms of survival. I worry that my African American foster son might one day encounter a police officer with a less-than-disciplined trigger finger. I worry that my Latino foster son will be treated as less than fully American because of the anti-immigrant, anti-Latino rhetoric swirling around the political ether.  So why did it take parenting children of color for this societal cancer to become so urgent for me? Because until now it wasn’t close enough to home. Yes, while they’re living under my roof, it is both the job of my wife and myself to take care of our foster children of color in the same way we take care of our biological children. But the experience has driven home to me that my job is also to take care of them by doing everything in my power to help make the world they live in a more tolerant and just place. I didn’t fully appreciate this until I saw that my current fears are their future fears. Psalm 119:18 teaches, “Open my eyes that I may see wondrous things in your law.” Each day forward I will commit to the mystical and ethical enterprise of opening my eyes, reaffirming my commitment to human dignity, and to approaching the world with a deeper and more open spirit of learning compassion. It’s something I knew, but that my foster children helped me truly understand. What I’ve learned, and believe more white people must learn, is that because I didn’t know the extent to which racism was a part of all of our lives, I was too passive in combating the racial injustice around me. Now, I’m better prepared to confront bigotry and bias — including my own — because racism is no longer just in the news or in my thoughts. It’s in my life.

Virginia’s arbitrary barrier to adoption

VIRGINIA OFFICIALS talk a good game when it comes to rehabilitating criminal convicts. In practice, they fall short. The state remains one of the nation’s most mean-spirited when it comes to restoring voting rights to convicted felons, a process that is automatic or nearly so in most states, and Republicans would like to make the rules still more stringent. Virginia is no more forgiving — we would say, no more humane — in determining who may, or rather may not, adopt children. A case in point is Laura Tarantino, a 28-year-old Alexandria woman who, with her husband, Frederick, an Air Force reservist, is the parent of a 5-year-old boy. The Tarantinos would dearly love to adopt a child — Laura was herself adopted as a baby — but cannot, owing to her convictions, as a teenager and as a 21-year-old on a pair of drug charges, the second of which sent her to prison for a year. As described by The Post’s Victoria St. Martin, the heart-rending saga of the Tarantinos’ struggle to adopt is a case study of a capricious and arbitrary law whose real-world effect is not just cruel but senseless, too. If Ms. Tarantino lived in Maryland or the District, or a number of other states, she and her husband would be eligible to adopt a child, having cleared the five- year waiting period following her felony convictions. In the commonwealth, however, a 10-year hiatus following conviction is required. And so the Tarantinos, barred from adoption until 2019 by Laura’s 2009 conviction, wait, and wait — and lobby for a change in the law. Granted, some criminal convictions — certainly any that involve serious violence, or abuse of minors — are grounds for disqualifying would-be parents from adopting children. For many other crimes, including many drug offenses, a waiting period before adoption is a fair and reasonable restriction. But a 10-year wait, for Ms. Tarantino’s heroin possession conviction, is excessive. State law should allow for a case-by-case assessment of prospective adoptive parents whose individual merits and circumstances vary enormously. Such is the Virginia law’s arbitrariness that a criminal conviction for breaking and entering of a home with the intent of theft would mean a 25-year wait for a perpetrator who hoped to become a foster parent. But the same convict would never be able to adopt a child. Ever. The welfare of an individual child is the paramount concern, as Del. Robert B. Bell (R-Albemarle) rightly told The Post. But in an undertaking as subject to circumstance as the adoption of a child, a one-size-fits-all approach defies logic. If the state can make considered individual judgments about granting parole to convicts, why can’t it do the same for ex-felons who hope to become adoptive parents? **Read more:** Susan Punnett and Erica Rosenberg: For teens in foster care, adoption is a lifeline Nina Easton: A Mother’s Day plea to stop equating adoption with abandonment Letters to the Editor: Virginia’s callousness on gay adoption The Post’s View Opinion: The Grand Old Party of disenfranchisement The Post’s View: A path to justice for ex-convicts in Virginia

DC127 aims to connect city’s foster children with families

Aaron Graham doesn’t believe he’s doing anything special with his new program, DC127, which seeks to find families for the city’s foster children. He says he’s just following instructions that were written eons ago. “DC127 is actually inspired from a Scripture in the Bible — James 1:27 — which says true religion is to care for orphans and widows in their distress,” said Graham, who is pastor of the District Church. Graham has done more than memorize Scripture; he’s putting it into practice alongside his wife, Amy, who co-founded the program with him. One of numerous “127” church-based groups that have emerged nationwide during the past decade to help children who need adoptive families, DC127 aims to help place hundreds of city children who don’t have homes. According to city child-welfare officials, there are nearly 2,800 children in the system, with more than 1,250 in foster care and 290 who are waiting for adoption. The numbers haven’t budged for almost a decade. “It’s been steady for quite some time,” said Mindy Good, a spokeswoman for the District’s Child and Family Services Agency. The Grahams — who are adoptive parents and have been foster parents — didn’t need to know the figures to understand this was an issue that needed addressing. “It’s very much part of our story,” Amy Graham said. “And so it’s just an extension of our hearts.” Aaron Graham said he believes everyone can do something to help children in the foster-care system. “Even if you’re not ready to foster or adopt at this point, you can help support a foster child by mentoring them,” he said. “Or you can help support a family by babysitting or by cooking a meal for them.” Ritu Atwal, program manager for the Child and Family Services’ family resource division, said she hopes that working with DC127 — which she called the first large-scale effort of its kind in the city — will help her agency “get more foster parents in the District that will be able to take our children.” She said keeping the children in the District is a priority. “They go through a lot of trauma already,” Atwal said. “If you can keep them in the same school district, the same church, the same community so that although they’re leaving their biological homes, they’re not removed from their communities.” Faith-based groups have worked with city welfare agencies before, but in recent years the efforts have waned, said Kathy Ledesma, national project director for AdoptUSKids. Her group sponsored a summit in 2003 that called for such cooperation at a time when the number of District children waiting for adoption was at an all-time high: 1,124. She said DC127’s efforts are a sign that “now the pendulum is swinging back the other way.” DC127’s project coordinator, Chelsea Geyer, said the organization is working quickly, having brought together 10 churches since it began in February. “Our goal is to see that there are more families waiting for kids than kids waiting for families,” Geyer said. Ledesma said she believes the program could be a positive movement, so long as foster parents do not place undue expectations on children who have experienced traumatic events. “We really also need to take in the long-term effects of suffering from abuse or neglect and to be realistic about that,” Ledesma said. Katie and Kelly Ford are foster parents who embrace the mission set forth by DC127. They’re caring for siblings, ages 9 and 4. The Fords, who have been married for three years, learned about the faith-based group during a church event and said the help they received since joining was an unexpected surprise. “I’m so grateful for DC127, because we would have felt kind of like lone rangers, you know,” said Katie Ford, 51. “Our church supports it, and they’re excited for us but to be around people that are, ‘What do you need, Katie? Let me see if I can find some people to help you get a babysitter.’ It’s just nice to have support.” For the Fords, who met the children at the end of April, there’s always a chance that after a year, they might not be together. But Kelly Ford said he hopes that no matter where his foster children go, they always know it’s “okay to get close to people.” “We don’t want them to be afraid to connect with us, to anybody in the future, because of maybe hurt feelings in the past,” he said. Katie Ford knows all about responsibility. As the eldest of five children, she always dreamed of becoming a mother. It’s little things she cherishes: the first time her foster children played in the ocean or their first real Christmas tree. Asked what she liked best about the tree, Ford’s 9-year-old foster daughter brushed a few stray braids away from her face, sniffed and said sweetly, “Minty.” Aaron Graham, DC127’s founder, said what the Fords are doing — and what he hopes other families will do — centers on a higher calling. “We have a responsibility, not only as a church, but as leaders in our city to wrap our arms and our hearts and our minds around these children to make sure that every kid has a brightened future,” Graham said, “and that certainly should be the case in our nation’s capital.”

Utah judge removes himself from lesbian foster-care case

A juvenile court judge in Utah who drew criticism for removing a foster child from the home of a lesbian couple has recused himself from the case. Apparently agreeing to a motion filed by the couple, Judge Scott Johansen issued an order Monday that he “hereby disqualifies himself from this case and refers all pending matters to the Presiding Judge.” Johansen, a juvenile court judge in eastern Utah, had drawn the ire of gay rights activists and others, including former secretary of state Hillary Clinton, for removing the 9-month-old baby from the home of Beckie Peirce and April Hoagland, who had fostered the child for three months. The couple was seeking to adopt the child. Last week, Johansen ordered that the girl be removed from the home instead and placed with a heterosexual couple within seven days, citing research that suggested the girl would do better in a home with a father and a mother. Leading medical organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics, however, have said children do just as well in homes with same-sex parents. The state’s Division of Child and Family Services objected to the order, and the state’s Republican governor also cited concerns that Johansen’s order was not lawful. After the outcry, Johansen put a stay on his order, setting a date in December for a hearing to determine the child’s best interests. But on Monday, the judge decided to heed calls to remove himself from the case. “We are thankful that Judge Johansen has decided to step aside. Our greatest concern now is taking care of our beautiful baby foster daughter. We are grateful for the outpouring of love and support from people all across the nation. We are grateful that our family is now being treated equally under the law.” Peirce and Hoagland said in a statement released by the LGBT rights group Equality Utah. Troy Williams, the executive director of the group, said, “We applaud Judge Johansen for recusing himself from this case. LGBT parents love and adore their children with as much devotion as our heterosexual counterparts. Sexual orientation should never be a barrier to raising a loving family.” _This report has been updated._    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico

Utah judge orders foster child removed from lesbian couple’s home

A Utah judge ordered a lesbian couple this week to give up their foster daughter to heterosexual parents, highlighting a harsh reality for same-sex couples: Although they can now marry legally in the United States, many still face huge obstacles to becoming parents. That fact was on display when Judge Scott Johansen, a juvenile-court justice in eastern Utah, ordered a 9-month-old girl removed from the home of Beckie Peirce and April Hoagland. Although the state’s child-welfare office and the birth mother had approved the child’s placement in the couple’s home, Johansen said Tuesday that she would be better off in a family led by heterosexual parents. “Today Judge Scott Johansen ordered our foster child be moved due to our sexual orientation!” Peirce wrote on Facebook that afternoon. “How is this ok?” The story caught fire nationally, provoking outrage from gay rights supporters who called Johansen’s order backward and unconstitutional. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton tweeted in response Wednesday that “being a good parent has nothing to do with sexual orientation — thousands of families prove that.” Utah Gov. Gary R. Herbert (R) pronounced himself “puzzled” by the ruling and concerned about judicial “activism.” Longtime gay rights advocates said the decision, while upsetting, was not altogether surprising: Although the Supreme Court affirmed the right to same-sex marriage nationally in June, many states have yet to incorporate the ruling into their policies governing parenting rights. Same-sex couples often choose foster care and adoption as a route to parenthood, but both systems have sparked passionate debates over civil rights and discrimination because people disagree about what is best for children. In addition to sexual orientation, fights have erupted over black children being placed with white parents and the appropriateness of single-parent homes. Only seven states explicitly bar discrimination against gay parents in foster care, said Emily Hecht-McGowan, director of public policy for the Family Equality Council, which advocates for the rights of gay and transgender parents. Mississippi still has a law on the books barring same-sex couples — including those who are legally married — from adopting children. The law is being challenged in court. In Florida, litigation is pending over a decision by the state’s health department to bar the non-birth parent in a same-sex couple from being included on a child’s birth certificate, unlike heterosexual couples. Several states recently enacted protections allowing child-placement agencies to refuse placements for religious reasons. And questions remain generally about whether “all the rights of parentage granted to different-sex couples will flow seamlessly to same-sex couples,” Hecht-McGowan said. “My guess is that we’ll be addressing those issues in the courts for many years to come,” she said. In Utah, she said, state laws governing foster care give preference to heterosexual married couples. Earlier this year, Utah adopted an anti- discrimination law that won praise from both gay rights groups and religious liberties advocates. But it does not bar discrimination in public accommodations — the category into which foster care and adoption would likely fall, said Robin Maril, senior legislative counsel for the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights organization. Still, many legal experts said Johansen’s order is unlikely to withstand a legal challenge. The Supreme Court ruling affirming the right to same-sex marriage essentially established legal parity between same-sex and heterosexual married couples, they said, leaving Johansen no legal rationale for favoring one over the other. Maril said Peirce and Hoagland would have a strong case if they invoked the 14th Amendment’s equal-protection clause, which requires state laws to be applied equally to all people. “We have no reason to believe that if they brought an equal-protection claim that it would not work,” she said. On Thursday, Peirce and Hoagland did not respond to repeated requests for comment. The judge’s order was not available and will not be made public by the court because it involves a juvenile. However, a spokeswoman for the Utah courts confirmed the basic facts of the decision, and the state’s Division of Child and Family Services confirmed aspects of it. Brent Platt, the agency’s director, said the 9-month-old girl was placed with Peirce and Hoagland three months ago. The couple met the agency’s rigorous vetting process, he said, and was moving toward adopting the girl with the blessing of her birth mother. On Tuesday, Platt said the agency was stunned to receive an order telling it to remove the child from the Peirce-Hoagland home within seven days and to place her with a heterosexual couple. The situation was “very unique,” Platt said, because the agency has placed children in many gay households since same-sex marriage became legal in Utah two years ago. Never before, he said, has a judge cited the parents’ sexual orientation as a reason to remove a child. Platt said the agency is looking for a heterosexual couple to care for the girl, but it has also asked for a stay of the decision. “We don’t take placements lightly,” he said, adding that the agency takes pains to find a loving and positive environment for each child. “And I’m confident that’s what the team did in this situation.” In interviews with local reporters, Peirce and Hoagland said the judge explained his decision by citing “research” suggesting that children do better in homes led by heterosexual parents. However, he did not provide that research when asked for it, they said. Peirce, 34, and Hoagland, 38, from rural Carbon County, were legally married in October 2014 and were licensed as foster parents this year, according to the Salt Lake Tribune. They are also raising Peirce’s two children, 12 and 14, the newspaper reported. The couple expressed grief at the idea of giving up a girl who they said had been thriving in her new home, and they pledged to appeal. The ruling is “heartbreaking,” Hoagland told KUTV, the CBS affiliate in Salt Lake City. “We’ve been told to care for this child like a mother would, and I am her mother, that’s who she knows, and she’s just going to be taken away in seven days. . . . It’s not fair and it’s not right, and it just hurts me really badly because I’ve done nothing wrong.” This is not the first time one of Johansen’s decisions has made headlines. In 1995, at the courthouse in Price, Utah, where he served, he slapped the 16-year-old son of a friend who thought the teenager was stealing, according to media reports. Johansen expressed regret for the incident, and he was reprimanded by a judicial conduct commission for “demeaning the judicial office.” In 2012, Johansen made an unusual decision while pondering the fate of a teenager facing assault charges for cutting off most of a toddler’s hair. He ordered the child’s mother to cut off the teen’s ponytail in the courtroom in exchange for a lighter sentence, according to Salt Lake City’s Deseret News. Also in 2012, the Tribune took Johansen to task for imposing a harsh sentence on a boy who had been on probation for stealing a pack of gum. He ordered the boy sent back to jail because he had violated his probation by getting poor grades on his report card, the editorial said.

A better way to help vulnerable children and families

__ Every year, thousands of American children are taken from their homes and placed in foster care. And in the midst of an opioid epidemic, those numbers are rising. For many children, foster care is absolutely necessary and even lifesaving. Many of those children find stability they never had thanks to the tireless work of dedicated social workers, foster parents, judges and treatment providers. But in many cases, it’s possible to improve a child’s family situation at home and avoid the trauma of being separated from family, friends and school, as well as the long-term cost of foster care. Most children come into foster care not as a result of physical or sexual abuse but due to complex factors related to neglect. According to national data, in more than one-third of foster care cases, parental substance abuse is cited as a reason for removing a child from home. Experts report that, in reality, the percentage of foster care cases involving parental substance abuse is likely twice that high. These families are often also dealing with issues such as poverty, mental or physical illness, or parental incarceration. More than half of children who enter foster care eventually live with their parents again. But the unfortunate reality is that many foster children struggle to deal with their experiences, even when it becomes safe for them to return home. Historically, foster children have been more likely to encounter the juvenile and adult criminal-justice systems, more likely to become pregnant as teenagers and less likely to hold down a job. When we hear from children who have spent time in foster care, something they often say is: “You could have helped my mom” or “you could have helped my dad.” Take, for example, the case of a young man from Florida placed in foster care at age 11 because his parents and other family members were addicted to drugs. He said that if his parents had gotten the substance abuse treatment they needed, it’s possible he could have grown up safely at home. Instead, he aged out of the system at 18, leaving him to navigate adulthood on his own and without the support of a family. We agree there is a better way to help vulnerable children and families. That’s why we chose to work together, across party lines, to create long-term, structural changes to the child welfare system. In June, we introduced the bipartisan, bicameral Family First Prevention Services Act, to strengthen families by doing more to keep children from entering foster care, and to ensure that they are in the right setting if they can’t stay safely at home. The legislation would begin a new era for the child welfare system by aligning the funding with what we all believe: Foster care should be limited, temporary and high-quality. Under this bill, instead of having a system that just pays for foster care, states would receive federal support to strengthen families through substance abuse treatment, mental-health services and in-home parenting programs — to allow parents or other relatives to get the help they need to safely care for their kids. It would also — for the first time — set high national standards for foster care group homes to ensure that the most vulnerable children get clinical and professional help to address the traumas they have experienced. Child advocates have been seeking these changes for more than two decades, and we worked together — House and Senate, in a bipartisan process — to draft the final bill. More than 300 child welfare groups, from the American Academy of Pediatrics to the Children’s Defense Fund, to Catholic Charities and Focus on the Family, have endorsed the bill. The House of Representatives decisively passed the bill in June. When the Senate resumes legislative work this week, it will have the opportunity to take an important step to help children and their families. Our most vulnerable have already been waiting too long. **Read more:** Susan Punnett and Erica Rosenberg: For teens in foster care, adoption is a lifeline Editorial: A tragic foster care failure Jeff Katz: Congress should focus on interstate, rather than international, adoptions

Here’s how it works when a couple adopts through our Christian embryo bank

If so, here’s a quick explainer on the subject and on the National Embryo Donation Center, the Christian group for which I work, which facilitated the Halberts’ embryo transfer. In-vitro fertilization (IVF), the process of conceiving a child by combining egg and sperm in a lab, has been in existence for several decades now and is an increasingly common method to which couples turn when they encounter fertility struggles. Often couples undergo a successful cycle or two of IVF, give birth to their desired number of children and finish building their families. Many of these couples end up creating more embryos than are needed or able to be used to build their families and at that point are faced with a dilemma: What do we do with our embryos that remain?  These couples have four options. They may choose to discard their embryos, donate them to embryonic stem cell research, continue to store them in cryopreservation or donate them to be used by others hoping to build families. We at the NEDC exist to facilitate and advocate for the formation of families with these “unused” embryos. Life begins at conception, which means we see embryos as the tiniest of human lives, not just tissue. That is why we accept embryos remaining from IVF from all over the country free of charge to those who donate them. We then adopt the embryos out to couples who –in most cases- are experiencing the trial of fertility challenges. We and many others call this process embryo donation and embryo adoption (ED/EA), though some in the fertility industry take issue with the term “adoption.” That’s because, legally, transferring custody of embryos is treated as a property transfer rather than an adoption. Under the law, adoptions technically involve human beings who have been born. Regardless, we and many other clinics believe the term “embryo adoption” is not a misnomer, and that it describes the process rather well. Couples are taking children who are not biologically theirs and welcoming them into their lives, hoping for the opportunity to raise them to adulthood. Many organizations, like ours, even include elements of the traditional adoption process, such as requiring home studies and offering the option to have an open or closed relationship with the genetic donor families. When the NEDC began operating in 2003, there were only a handful of organizations facilitating embryo donation and embryo adoption. Now there are at least several dozen clinics in the country performing the procedures, though the 564 births as a result of our program constitute the largest total of any organization in the world. We believe there are compelling reasons for couples encountering fertility challenges to consider this option. For one, the cost –generally in the $6000 to $10,000 range for a first FET with our organization- is more affordable than international or most forms of domestic adoption. Of course, there is also the unique opportunity for the adoptive mother to carry and bond with her child. Finally, with 625,000 to 1,000,000 embryos estimated to be in frozen storage in this country, our medical director believes it should be a priority for couples to create fewer embryos. Technology has evolved to the point where egg-freezing, a process that creates no ethical dilemma yet leaves fertility options open for the future, is a very compelling choice to consider.

India moves to improve ‘shameful’ record on orphan adoptions

NEW DELHI — When Shreya Roy applied to adopt an orphan in New Delhi in 2012, she was told that the wait could be at least three years — if she was lucky. “We called about 25 children’s adoption homes in the city. They kept saying, ‘There are no babies, there are no babies,’ ” said Roy, a 35-year-old public relations professional. “It just did not make sense. Just look around — there are so many abandoned and poor babies.” Roy’s frustration reflects what one government official calls India’s “shameful” record on adoption: With more than 30 million orphans in the country, according to one estimate, only about 2,500 were adopted last year, down from 5,700 four years ago. Prospective parents, meanwhile, are stymied by complicated rules, long delays, overcautious bureaucracy and illegal trafficking. Now, officials such as Maneka Gandhi, the minister for women and child development, want to change that. “People have to wait for three to four years to adopt. That is inexcusable,” Gandhi said recently. “I want to overhaul the system so it takes not more than four months to adopt.” Gandhi’s team is simplifying the rules, creating an online application-tracking system, shedding excessive bureaucratic caution and launching a new foster-care program. “Earlier, the attitude was if a child got adopted before four years, there must have been something wrong,” Gandhi said. “So they would look for ways to make the rules tighter.” But reform may not come easily, particularly for foreign adoptions. The annual number of adoptions by foreigners fell from 628 to 271 in the past four years because the government’s priority is to find Indian parents first. India also wants to limit foreign adoptions to less than 20 percent of the total. This month, a parliamentary panel killed a government proposal to boost foreign adoptions, saying that such an option must be explored only when there is a problem finding suitable parents within India. Observers say there are fewer children coming into licensed adoption agencies because of a thriving illegal market that funnels abandoned infants from hospitals directly to couples. Those who try to adopt legally face long, frustrating waits. Some lose patience and give up. Others opt for surrogacy, an expensive but emerging trend among the affluent middle classes here. Or they bribe an official or call a VIP to try to jump the line. “This is why agencies offer foreigners older children or those with disabilities,” said Lorraine Campos, assistant director of Palna, one of the oldest adoption homes in the capital. “Indians don’t like to adopt them. They ask for healthy babies that are about 6 months old or so. Even a minor disability is a no-no for Indian parents.” But Campos said the number of infants coming to the adoption homes has dropped sharply in the past four years. They disappear from the hospital, she said, with the active connivance of doctors and nurses. There is no estimate of how big the illegal market for adoption is, officials say. “A large number of children go missing every year in India, and the number of infants is huge,” said Bhuwan Ribhu, a child rights activist with Bachpan Bachao Andolan (Save the Childhood Movement), which teamed up with police in New Delhi last year to bust illegal children’s homes. “It shows that there is a big illegal adoption market.” In the past three years, footage from surveillance cameras at hospitals and crowded train stations has shown images of infants being stolen in big cities such as New Delhi and Mumbai. In fact, the decline in adoptions is coinciding with waning social and caste taboos about taking in orphans among middle-class couples in Indian cities, analysts say. Nonetheless, the drop is pushing some agencies to shut down. Official adoption numbers may also be low because many Indians who adopt from within their extended family networks do not register the adoption. “So we really do not know how many orphans there are in India or how many adoptions. There is a data vacuum,” said Vinita Bhargava, author of a book on adoption. Frequent scandals involving adoption agencies selling children secretly to prospective parents, including foreigners, have also made the government wary of foreign adoption. Another hurdle is the lack of clear guidelines here to regulate foreigners’ attempts to adopt directly from biological parents without going through formal adoption agencies, said lawyer Karan Thukral. “The lack of legal clarity means such adoptions become vulnerable to delays, harassment and corruption,” Thukral said. “At present, we are concerned with the fate of the adopted child in the U.S. What will be the status of the child there?” Delhi’s High Court stated in January, asking officials to study U.S. adoption law. One of the cases that the court was hearing involved Promila Massey, 52, who works at a used-car company in Laurel, Md. Massey cleared the adoption requirements in the United States and came to India to adopt a 9-year-old girl in 2012 directly from a friend. The handing-over ceremony was attended by family members, friends and a pastor, she recalled. She then registered the adoption with the local office here. When Massey began the process of obtaining a passport for the girl, she was told that she needed a “no objection certificate” from India’s adoption authorities. That certificate still has not come, she said. She went to the High Court later that year. “It has been three years and my daughter is still stuck in India with her aunt. I have begged the officers [and] the court judge to let me have my daughter, but the case just drags on,” Massey said in a telephone interview. “She is growing up fast. Time is flying. I wanted to give her a good life here. But now I don’t know when I can have her.” For Roy, the long wait finally paid off. She and her husband received a 15-month-old child last year. “It is just a matter of patience. You wait it out no matter how frustrating and hopeless it seems,” Roy said. **Read more:** Children of Sri Lankan refugees born in India uncertain about future Tragic case prompts India to adopt a law permitting ‘passive’ euthanasia Today's coverage from Post correspondents around the world

Adoption day in D.C. creates new families

In the world of foster kids and adoption, babies get scooped up quickly. The decks are more stacked against older children. With each year that passes, their cheeks become less irresistibly chubby, their emotional wounds become deeper and their chances of getting adopted start to dry up. That is exactly why Reginald Wilson and Wesley McCammon wanted to adopt “older” children from the child welfare system. On Saturday, they officially became the parents of Reginald, 9, and Regina, 10, during the District’s 26th annual Adoption Day ceremony at D.C. Superior Court. It was a long journey that started for the couple in their native Mississippi and finished Saturday, when Wilson burst into tears as his family walked to the stage to get the adoption papers signed. D.C. Mayor Vincent C. Gray (D) rose from his chair to comfort a sobbing Wilson, and Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Mullin, who signed the papers, brushed tears from her cheeks. “I was walking up there, and I was realizing: This was it,” Wilson said, still wiping his eyes after the ceremony in which 34 of the District’s neediest children were adopted. Wilson and McCammon, who celebrated their 20th anniversary Friday, moved from Mississippi to the Washington area last year so they could expand their family. In Mississippi, same-sex couples cannot adopt. “We decided to pack up and move to D.C.,” Wilson said. “Our jobs, our house, even the cars we drive, everything was centered around having children.” The couple, now married and both D.C. public school teachers, know the statistics about older foster children. More than half of the children adopted from the child welfare system in the District in fiscal 2012 were 5 and under, while about 17 percent were older than 10. According to the American Adoptions Web site, 62 percent of privately adopted children are placed with a family when they are less than a year old. During Saturday’s ceremony, the majority of the kids were pint-size guys with little-man suits or impossibly cute girls with braids, hair bows and tiny, shiny shoes. Most of them were hoisted up by emcee Barbara Harrison, NBC News4 anchor, so the crowd could get a glimpse of them in their fancy clothes. Some of the children spoke, thanking their parents and the judges. When the tots got to the microphone, they simply said, “Hi,” or “I like to eat pizza.” They were the lucky ones. There are still an additional 138 children in the District who are awaiting adoption, more than half of them 13 and older and many bouncing among foster homes. “The older kids get, some kids may lose hope,” said Mindy Good, spokeswoman for the D.C. Child and Family Services Agency. “In general, the older a child is, the more difficult to find a permanent home for them.” When children turn 14 in the District, they can decide that they’ve had enough disappointment, that they don’t want to be eligible for adoption. Wilson, 41, and McCammon, 40, have known for years that they wanted to adopt. In Mississippi, they took in foreign-exchange students and, after seven years of hosting various children, decided it was time to have kids of their own. They loved their annual sightseeing trips to Washington and learned they could adopt here, so they uprooted their lives and took a leap of faith. Because they are teachers, they wanted school-aged children so they would have the same schedule. Wilson said he did not feel comfortable talking about his children’s lives before they were with him but said they are now thriving. They had been in foster care for seven years. “You do the math,” he said. Reginald and Regina, who are biological siblings, have been living with Wilson and McCammon in their Gaithersburg home since April. The couple met their children in March at a dinner at which the children did not know they were meeting prospective parents. The bond was immediate, Wilson said. The kids grabbed their future parents’ hands and led them around Chuck E. Cheese’s, playing and laughing for hours. “Within 10 minutes of meeting them, we were like, ‘Let’s do it,’ ” McCammon said. They said the past few months have been a dizzying ride of ballet, violin, karate, family dinners, homework and, at little Reginald’s insistence, making sure his clothes match Wilson’s. The kids even changed their names to resemble Wilson’s. “If I have a plaid shirt with blue, little Reggie has to have a plaid shirt with blue,” Wilson said. “One day, I was wearing pink socks, and he looked at them and said ‘Hmm, pink socks.’ And I knew what that meant: I had to go buy him pink socks.” Wilson joked that one challenge has been his daughter’s hair. Every Sunday, he said, he presses and braids it for two hours. “Her hair is the bane of my existence,” he laughed. “But I have four sisters — I’m good at doing it. If that’s what it takes to make her happy, I’m going to do it.” He said adopting the children has been challenging and exhausting but such an overwhelmingly happy experience that he wants to tell the world. “There are problems that can arise just as there would be with biological children,” Wilson said. “If there are people out there who want to do it but are scared, I’m here to tell you it can be done. You can make a difference. Every child deserves a loving home.” Regina and Reginald now have one. When it was their turn to have their adoption papers signed, Regina walked to the microphone and looked at her dads. “I’m happy I have them because I’m appreciated,” she said. “And I hope I live with them forever.”

The poverty issue is about marriage

President Obama likes to talk about inequality. Republican reformers like to talk about upward mobility and poverty. Often lacking is an honest discussion and agenda centered on a key driver of poverty. Robert Doar, the former commissioner for New York City’s Human Resources Administration and now a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, testified before a Senate committee recently that we should:    *[WSU]: Wayne State University • Create stronger work requirements for public assistance programs; • Better target work supports, and sometimes make them more generous, to make low wages stretch further; • Mitigate marriage penalties embedded in means-tested welfare programs and send honest public messages about the significant challenges of raising children in single-parent families. • Create targeted programs for young men and young parents in poor communities; and • Establish a pro job-growth and labor mobility policy, specifically relocation assistance for the unemployed. As for the third, politicians feel squeamish about tackling the issue head on, which unfortunately leaves out a critical part of the inequality/mobility/poverty equation. Doar notes, “The consensus view of academic research, and of common sense, is that children raised in married, two-parent families are more likely to be successful than those raised by single parents. Yet many public assistance programs are structured in ways that provide greater financial benefits to single parent families than married families. And unfortunately most of our leading institutions and leaders shy away from reiterating that children are less likely to grow up in poverty if they are born into married two-parent families. We need to mitigate marriage penalties in public assistance programs and we need to be honest about the consequences for children of single parenthood.” It’s no mystery why liberals decline to address the marriage/childbirth issue head on. Politicians fear being seen as judgmental and see the marriage issue as an excuse for conservatives to cut assistance for the poor. The idea that a major social ill can’t be solved simply by dumping money into government programs threatens their cherished views of the welfare state. But, of course, as Doar pointed out, the effort to promote marriage — or, more specifically, to promote childrearing within marriage — need not detract from other policy measures. Ignoring it, however, means many of the other components of the anti-poverty agenda may fall flat. Mona Charen recently wrote:    *[WSU]: Wayne State University As frustrating as it may be for politicians and public-policy types, much of the work here has to be done by non-political figures. Until religious and civic leaders take up the issue of the social pathologies involved with young, single parenthood, it is hard to image a sea change in behavior. It’s no secret that many religious leaders would rather talk about environmentalism or abortion than out-of-wedlock childbirth. In the political realm, there are a few standouts. When first elected as Indiana governor, former GOP congressman Mike Pence signed a controversial executive order to require “all state agencies that impact families and children to draft a family impact statement in order to ensure that no rule or regulation in the state of Indiana would be a detriment to healthy families in our state.” In a speech in December, he explained, “We’ve initiated a multi- agency effort to bring together a diverse group of Hoosiers and national leaders to have a conversation about the research and best practices in promoting childbearing in intact homes in the next year.” He continued:    *[WSU]: Wayne State University In addition to talking about the subject and making sure state policies don’t create the wrong incentives, Pence is focusing on child mortality rates, quality prekindergarten for disadvantaged youth, career and vocational training, drop-out rates, a plan to “index the per child dependency exemption in the state of Indiana to strengthen and protect the fiscal foundation under our families for years to come” and an initiative to expand and improve adoption procedures. If conservatives, and especially social conservatives who have devoted their lives to studying and promoting the health of families, want to make a difference on this issue and dispel the image that they are heartless (or only obsessed with preventing gay marriage) there is no better issue to tackle than this. They should not buy into the liberal criticism that this is an either/or proposition. This is not a penny-pinching endeavor. The economics (decrease in welfare rolls, increase in work and tax revenues) will take care of themselves, but not immediately. And, if done right, it probably will require ample expenditures for the all-inclusive outreach and casework needed to guide millions of young people into making better life decisions. The goal here is not saving money but improving lives.

Survey: Most Americans see migrant Central American children as refugees

Most Americans say the waves of children crossing into the United States from Central America are refugees fleeing danger at home. And they say the United States should support these children while reviewing their cases, not deport them immediately. These largely sympathetic views come from all points along the political and religious spectrums, according to a survey by the Public Religion Research Institute this week. Democrats (80 percent), independents (69 percent) and Republicans (57 percent) favor offering support to unaccompanied children while a process to review their cases gets underway. Majorities of major religious groups say the same, including white evangelical Protestants (56 percent), white mainline Protestants (67 percent), minority Protestants (74 percent) and Catholics (75 percent), as well as the religiously unaffiliated (75 percent). The survey sample of 1,026 adults was not large enough to capture the views of smaller religious groups, such as Jews, Muslims and Mormons. “It makes a difference that we are talking about children facing violence and harm,” said Robert P. Jones, chief executive of PRRI. “The value of keeping families together cuts across all party lines.” As a result, most Americans can make a “pretty clear distinction between the problem of the children arriving from Central America and the problem of illegal immigration in general,” Jones said. The survey found that attitudes toward immigrants are generally hardening somewhat, with a slight upward shift in the number of people who say they are a burden, not an asset, to the United States. About one in four Americans (27 percent) see the children as illegal immigrants who should be deported. But 69 percent say they should be treated as refugees and allowed to remain in the United States if authorities determine that it is not safe for them to be sent home. But Jones said, “Even among those who say, in general, to identify and deport them, more than one in three nonetheless say in the case of the children, they would offer support and begin a process of considering if they could stay.” Almost no one thinks the children are traveling thousands of miles without their parents for trivial reasons. The children are seen as fleeing violence and serious threats to their safety at home (45 percent), seeking better education and economic opportunities (34 percent) or both (14 percent). Seven in 10 surveyed Americans (70 percent) say the children should be offered shelter and support while there’s “a process to determine whether they should be deported or allowed to stay.” Most (56 percent) say these children’s families are “doing what they can to keep their children safe in very difficult circumstances.” At the same time, however, 38 percent say those children’s families are “taking advantage of American goodwill and are really seeking a back door to immigrate to our country.” Few minimize the seriousness of the situation — 36 percent consider it a crisis, and 43 percent call it “a serious problem but not a crisis.” Other survey results include: ●71 percent of respondents mostly agree that Central American children waiting for their cases to be heard “should be released to the care of relatives, host families or churches rather than be detained by immigration authorities.” Twenty-eight percent disagree. ●However, only 39 percent would allow the children to stay for good, and 59 percent don’t want them here long-term because it “will encourage others to ignore our laws and increase illegal immigration.” The overall survey is based on phone interviews with 1,026 adults, conducted in English and Spanish between July 23 and July 27. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.1 percentage points. ** — Religion News Service  **

Orphans in Russia fare poorly later on

The Dec. 26 editorial “Orphans held hostage,” regarding American adoption of Russian children, missed the real tragedy. My wife and I adopted two children from different areas of Russia some time ago, and I served on the board of directors of an international adoption agency for years. I visited Russian orphanages, and I believe the children received excellent care. While they’re never as good as a home with a family, these are not depressing places to live. And while it is heartbreaking to lose a child you’ve started to bond with, Americans who adopt from Russia always run the risk of losing a child to a Russian family before the adoption is finalized. But the risk of losing a child at the last minute are higher when adopting in the United States, which is one reason so many families turn to international adoption. The real tragedy is the life that Russian children face when they miss their window to be adopted. Russian adoption professionals will tell you that children who aren’t adopted by the age of 4 are unlikely to be. That means such children face life in an orphanage until age 16. Then, when they are released, the Russians don’t have the resources for an effective transition plan. These young people have an incomplete education, no family and no job skills. Often they have little choice but to enter a life of crime. The young men are recruited by organized criminals, and you can easily imagine what the young women often do to support themselves. ****Ken Sprinkle,** Potomac**

Brexit will make things worse. Is that why people voted for it?

It is a basic principle of economics that human beings choose things that benefit them. But last week, as the results of Britain’s referendum on membership in the European Union came in, it quickly became clear that this principle was being overturned. Not only had Britain as a whole voted for a course of action that would almost certainly make it collectively worse off, but individual regions had also voted against their apparent interests.  From an economist’s perspective, this level of self-harm is sheer madness. But since the vote, certain cultural and psychological factors have come into view. Apart from the role of age in influencing voting behavior — with older voters more likely to choose Leave and younger voters to choose Remain — a darker shadow has fallen over the result due to fresh polling evidence. Put bluntly, many Leave voters suffer from a desperate lack of hope. It may be that exact lack of hope and a desire to harm the system that brought it about that caused them to vote for the referendum. Strange as it may sound, every time pro-Europeans argued that leaving Europe would be economically disastrous, this could have increased the appeal of Brexit on an unconscious level for many people. And the same thing could be at play with voters backing Donald Trump in the U.S. election.  Those supporting membership in the E.U. mostly agreed that “life in Britain is better than it was 30 years ago” and that life for children growing up in Britain today “will be better than it was for their parents.” Those rejecting Europe tended to state the opposite. The country was split down the middle by whether or not they still believed in progress.   Taking all of this together, a typical Leave voter has authoritarian beliefs, yet no faith in the political system to implement authoritarian policies or to improve society some other way. Under these circumstances, individuals display what sociologists call “negative solidarity,” a feeling that if they’re to suffer, then everyone should, too. Psychologically, it is perhaps easier to experience feelings of despair and powerlessness if they are collective conditions, rather than private ones.   Could it be that, as with the British movement to leave the E.U., Trump is channeling a more primal form of despair? Could the implausibility and danger associated with Trump be part of what makes him appealing, at least for people who no longer care about making realistic plans for a future they already see as beyond rescue? There is good reason to suspect this is the case.       All of this represents an almost impossible challenge for campaign managers, pollsters and political scientists. The need for candidates to seem “natural” and “normal” is as old as television. Now it seems that they also need to give voice to the private despair of voters for whom collective progress appears a thing of the past. Where no politician is deemed “trustworthy,” many voters are drawn toward the politician who makes no credible pledges in the first place. Of course government policy can continue to help people, and even to restore some sense of collective progress. But for large swaths of British and American society, it seems best not to state as much.

Why are other countries wary of American adoptions?

Russian President Vladimir Putin said he will sign a bill barring Americans from adopting Russian children, an apparent retaliation for an American law that places visa and financial sanctions on Russian officials deemed to have been connected with the death of Russian whistleblower Sergei Magnitsky. The law would mean the approximately 1,000 orphans who find homes in the U.S. each year and the 46 children who are already in the process of being adopted would remain in Russia. Russia is not alone in its concerns. Elsewhere, other governments have also implemented stricter requirements for foreign adoptions over the past few years after finding that the Western appetite for orphans at best outpaced their supply -- and at worst led to widespread fraud. Countless American and Russian children's advocates have decried the new Russian measure, saying it does nothing to improve the situation of the 740,000 orphan children in Russia. Only 18,000 Russians are now waiting to adopt a child. “They are cannibals. They kill the country and they kill the children," Boris L. Altshuler, the chairman of the advocacy group Right of the Child, said of the Russian parliament to the New York Times. Though the bill is ostensibly a retaliatory measure for the recently-passed American Magnitsky Act, it's not the first time Russian policymakers have raised concerns over adoptions by Americans and other foreigners. Part of the issue seems to be an embarrassment over Russia's inability to care for all of its orphans. "It’s shameful for Russians to admit that there are around 700,000 orphans in Russia. And of course it’s very hard for Russians with the government to say that the country cannot take care of their own children," Natasha Shaginian, a psychiatrist who has worked in Russian orphanages, told PRI. Several high-profile cases of abuse also haven't helped. Russian policymakers named the bill after a high-profile Russian adoptee, Dima Yakovlev, a toddler who was adopted by a Virginia couple and died after being left in a hot car for nine hours. And after a 7-year-old Russian boy was returned alone to Moscow in 2010 by his Tennessean adoptive mother, the outrage was so great that a Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson temporarily announced a suspension of all U.S. adoptions. "U.S. Mother Returns Adopted Russian Boy like Pair of Shoes," read a sample Pravda headline at the time. Overall, Russian officials claim at least 19 Russian children have died while in the care of adoptive parents since the early 1990s. Russia’s Children’s Rights Ombudsman Pavel Astakhov has called for a ban on foreign adoptions throughout this fall, saying that prospective foreign parents' pledges to care for the adoptees are "all lies." To address some of the abuse concerns, Russia and the U.S. hammered out a bilateral adoption agreement, which went into effect on Nov. 1, mandating more screening for adoptive parents and greater scrutiny post-adoption, Ria Novosti reported. The agreement was intended “to promote stronger safeguards for adoptive children and parents in the inter-country adoption process,” a U.S. State Department official said at the time. China opened up to international adoptions in 1992, but in 2006 the Chinese government enacted a series of strict guidelines intended to limit an overwhelming number of applicants. As Time magazine reported: As a result, adoptions of Chinese children by U.S. citizens have dropped 50 percent between 2005 and 2008. And spurred in part by Madonna's high-profile African adoptions, several African countries have passed laws requiring prospective adoptive parents to live in the country for years before being able to adopt a child. Other countries have stopped encouraging international adoption entirely after cases of middlemen coercing or bribing poor parents to give up their children to wealthy Westerners were brought to light. Vietnam, for example, stopped adoptions to the United States in 2008 because of these concerns. "While there are legitimate orphans in Vietnam, the corruption in the adoption process has become so widespread that [the embassy] believes that there is fraud in the overwhelming majority of cases of infants offered for international adoption," said a cable from the U.S. embassy in Vietnam at the time. Ethiopia also began strengthening its oversight of adoptions and temporarily slowed adoption processing in 2011 after several reports of adoption fraud. So while Russia is certainly not alone in being wary of U.S. adoptions, it is a seemingly rare case of such a ban being prompted by political -- rather than humanitarian -- motivations. And though Russian officials have simultaneously proposed unspecific reforms to the country's child welfare system, it remains to be seen what exactly Russia will do for the thousands of children who could have had American homes. "The authorities will have to prove that they will take care of children better than Americans," wrote Maria Eismont, a columnist for the Russian news site Vedomosti.

‘Humanitarian’ appeals encourage a permissive immigration policy

_Joshua Tucker: The following guest post by political scientistBenjamin J. Newman , Todd K. Hartman, Patrick L. Lown, and Stanley Feldman is part of our ongoing collaboration with political science journals to bring you summaries of recently published work and to make that work available for free download for a period of time. Their article in the British Journal of Political Science, “Easing the Heavy Hand: Humanitarian Concern, Empathy, and Opinion on Immigration“, will be available for free here for the next 12 months._    *[WSU]: Wayne State University ***** President Obama’s inability to achieve comprehensive immigration reform stands as one of his major legislative defeats during his first term in office. Today, the issue continues to hound the president, with immigration activists growing increasingly vocal about the administration’s seemingly harsh deportation record and a Republican-controlled House of Representatives unwilling to wade into a divisive debate during an election year. Yet, the way in which the president and Congress approach immigration reform depends in large part upon how the issue is viewed by the American public. Recent polling data by the Pew Research Center suggest that while nearly everyone agrees that a major overhaul of the current system is necessary, voters remain deeply divided about levels of immigration into the United States, as well as the specific treatment of undocumented immigrants. In this battlefield over immigration reform, public opinion scholars have almost exclusively focused on understanding public opposition to immigration and the causes of aversion toward specific immigrant groups. However, anti-immigration sentiments are only half of the story. Left largely unexplored are the attitudes among pro- immigrant groups who advocate for immigrant rights and more permissive government policies. Relative to the opponents of immigration, much less is known about what motivates these immigration advocates. So, what causes people to support immigration?    *[WSU]: Wayne State University To begin, there are a number of usual suspects that are associated with opposition to immigration, including prejudice, perceived cultural and economic threats, and ideological conservatism. Yet, identifying the relative absence of factors known to boost opposition to immigration is not necessarily the same as determining which factors yield _support_ _for_ immigrants. Anecdotal evidence suggests that immigration is an issue that can tug at the heartstrings: Many immigrants come from disadvantaged circumstances, in which they are fleeing poverty, lack of opportunity, or harsh political oppression. Indeed, many of the most prominent pro-immigrant organizations mount public relations campaigns that explicitly appeal to the heart and call upon American citizens to consider immigrants not merely as Latinos, Africans, or Asians, but as fellow human beings with basic needs and rights that are being neglected in their home countries. Thus, the core message of proponents of immigration is one of humanitarianism.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University In a recent study we analyzed the importance of humanitarian values, defined as a concern for the well-being of others, to test its impact on immigration attitudes. One of the reasons this is an important concept is that research demonstrates that humanitarianism predicts support for policies that incorporate concern for the well-being of others, such as for government programs to support the disadvantaged, needy, infirm, or elderly. Using nationally representative survey data collected in 1996 and 2005, as well as our own survey data collected in 2012, we find that humanitarianism consistently predicts support for permissive immigration policies, and more importantly, this finding holds for American citizens across Democratic and Republican party lines. In our 2012 data, we also show that humanitarians are more likely to support specific government benefits for immigrants, as well as to grant the children of undocumented immigrants access to publicly funded schools.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University Humanitarian values clearly seem to play an important role in support for immigration, but we also know that political attitudes are not formed in a vacuum. Instead, they are the result of what people hear and see on a daily basis – that is, the information environment to which people are exposed. In line with this thinking, we examined how different media messages, which were specifically designed to mimic the dominant arguments from pro- and anti-immigration groups, affect immigration attitudes. Utilizing a survey-embedded experiment, we discovered that if the media were to highlight the plight of prospective immigrants, rather than focusing on potential threats they pose, then the ‘heavy hand’ typically dealt immigrants by the public could be eased in favor of support for more permissive policies. Most interestingly, our research suggests that humanitarian appeals have the potential to generate support for immigration, even in the presence of countervailing threats. Lastly, our research highlights the relevance of empathy as a trait of central importance in shaping public reactions to immigration debates, as we discovered it enhances the effect of humanitarian information and undermines the effect of typical threat-based appeals. Thus, when it comes to arousing more tolerance and support for immigration, we find that those who are best able to mentally and emotionally “put themselves in the shoes of another” are most likely to respond to humanitarian calls on behalf of immigrants. In sum, humanitarian concern seems to play a vital role in fostering support for immigrants and immigration policy, more generally. We also learned that humanitarianism is not simply a static individual difference in the electorate; rather, humanitarian concern can be cultivated with narratives that explore the reasons that immigrants leave their home countries in search of the “American Dream.” President Obama recently vowed to enforce immigration laws “more humanely,” but it remains unclear whether xenophobia or the concern for other human beings will ultimately prevail in the nation’s future immigration policies and border enforcement practices.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University

How orphaned chimps get adopted

Many animals will adopt orphaned infants of their own kind (or even, in rare cases, of other species) but their motivations are still up for debate. Is a dog that adopts a squirrel evidence of deep altruism in the animal kingdom, or just evidence of a very confused dog? To answer that question, we need to tackle the slightly-less-confusing topic of same-species adoption. A new study in PLoS One reports on the adoption behaviors of chimpanzees in the wild. Previous work has been difficult, because infant mortality rates tend to be very high in chimpanzee communities. With so many of the children dying, it was difficult to get a good sample of adopted orphans to observe.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday But over 20 years of observation of the Sonso chimpanzee community in Uganda allowed researchers to gain some insight into the practice. The majority of adoptions, they reported, occurred within families.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday Chimpanzee fathers don't actively raise their young, so a mother's death makes a chimp an orphan. But if they had older maternal siblings, the researchers found, those siblings would almost certainly step in to raise the helpless young ones - even if they were still years away from adulthood themselves. Non-sibling adoption only seemed to occur when no siblings were present, and even then it took much longer. While orphans with siblings would be cared for immediately by brothers and sisters, an orphan on her own would wait weeks or even months to be adopted by an adult chimp in the community. Why the wait? Young chimps form strong social bonds with their mothers and maternal siblings, but not with their fathers or the rest of the community. It's possible that adoptive parents can only be persuaded to care for an orphan once the child has succeeded in bonding with them. Unfortunately, many orphans die quickly, and ones who are never adopted rarely make it to adulthood. Scientists still aren't sure why adoption takes place in the animal kingdom. Adopted orphans are much more likely to survive, but adopting them can be burdensome for the new parent. It could be that adoptive parents are fulfilling a biological urge to help their species survive, especially if the orphans they adopt are closely related to them. In some cases, females may be physiologically primed to care for a baby and unable to give birth to one.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday Alternatively, adoptive parents may see orphans as potential future allies - especially if the child belongs to a stronger species. That's one explanation that scientists provided for a deformed bottlenose dolphin, who could have been seen as protection against killer whales by the sperm whales that seemed to adopt it. But scientists have also observed much smaller, weaker species being adopted. In that case, it's possible that the orphans were able to tag along because (compared to their adoptive siblings) they just weren't enough trouble to cause a stir.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday

Utah judge stays order to remove foster child from home of lesbian couple

A Utah judge has put a hold on his order to remove a foster child from the home of a married lesbian couple, whom he had said were unfit to keep the girl because of their sexual orientation. Judge Scott N. Johansen, a juvenile court justice in eastern Utah, struck language from his original order requiring that the 9-month-old be removed from the home within a week “in favor of a heterosexual foster adoptive placement.” He has set a hearing for Dec. 4 to determine the best interests of the child. _[Utah judge removes lesbian couple’s foster child, says she’ll be better off with heterosexuals]_    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico The original order to remove the child from the home of the Carbon County couple drew an outcry from around the country, with former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton chiming in and even the state’s Republican governor declaring himself “puzzled” and concerned that Johansen was not following the law. The couple, Beckie Peirce and April Hoagland, had said the judge cited “research” suggesting children do better in homes with heterosexual parents. But major medical associations, such as the American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, have said sexual orientation is unrelated to one’s ability to be a good parent. In his revised order, Johansen struck language that cited the court’s “belief” that same-sex marriages are less stable than heterosexual ones, and that children of such relationships have emotional problems. But it still cites the court’s “concern that research has shown that children are more emotionally and mentally stable when raised by a mother and a father in the same home.” Calls to the couple’s attorney, James Hunnicut, were not returned Friday. Peirce and Hoagland had taken in the baby three months ago, according to Utah’s Division of Child and Family Service. The agency has placed numerous children with gay couples since same-sex marriage became legal in Utah two years ago, and had appealed Johansen’s decision. The pair were moving toward adopting the child, with the blessing of her birth mother, agency officials said. Ashley Sumner, a spokeswoman for the agency, said officials there were pleased with the decision. “We are relieved that the judge vacated that part of the order that would have forced us to remove the child on Tuesday,” she said. “This has bought us some time, and we’ll see what happens Dec. 4 at a best interest hearing.” Troy Williams, executive director of Equality Utah, a gay rights group, also expressed relief. “We’re very happy to see movement on this issue, and we’re looking forward to a swift and happy resolution to this case,” he said.

I wanted to live with my uncle. I was sent to a group home instead.

One afternoon, I was called out of my high school ceramics class to meet with a social worker. I wouldn’t be going home to my family, she told me. My mom and dad loved me unconditionally, but they struggled to parent appropriately. As a result, when I was 14 the state decided to put me into foster care. That night, officials brought me to a short-term placement. I would stay there until something more long-term could be found. Though my foster mother was incredibly warm and caring, I was unhappy. The day’s upheaval had left me depleted and anxious. I wanted to be stay with someone I knew, not a stranger. After a sleepless weekend, my wish was granted — I was brought to my uncle and his family. I found solace in the fatherly talks with my uncle, wandering along the foothills of the Berkshire Mountains. He did his best to maintain some semblance of normalcy in my life, even arranging for me to visit with my beloved dogs.  I wasn’t. Two months after I went to live with my uncle, a social worker knocked on my uncle’s door and required that I leave with her. My uncle handed me a Bible, his eyes tearing, and told me I would be safe. My social worker drove me to an emergency youth shelter. I collapsed onto an unfamiliar bed with a graffiti-covered frame in a filthy room.       Now, the federal government is considering the Family First Prevention Services Act, bipartisan legislation that would reduce the need for foster care placements by providing families with time-limited prevention services like therapy or substance abuse treatment. It would connect kinship caregivers to better resources and services to take in their relatives’ children. And it would ensure group homes are providing the most vulnerable children with the care they need. If the Family First Prevention Services Act had been in place when I was fifteen, my parents could have received the help they needed to keep me safe and at home and prevented me from entering the foster care system in the first place. And if I still needed to enter foster care, there would have been a greater focus on allowing my uncle to keep me in his home. Senator Ron Wyden, co-author of the Family First Act, recently said, “The weight of the status quo is severe, and it falls heaviest on the thousands of foster kids living in quiet struggle.” I lived that struggle. And so did my foster sisters. Vulnerable children and families need the Family First Act more than ever. We owe them nothing less.

Most new parents are totally unprepared for their new babies

Becoming a parent is commonly imagined to be a joyful and “natural” life event. The reality is often very different. In the early weeks and months of life with a first baby, parents must master new skills including diaper changing, breast or bottle feeding, and “settling” a crying baby, usually while experiencing considerable sleep deprivation.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico New mothers have to recover from labor, childbirth and/or caesarean delivery. Primary carer parents find they need to re-orient their lives around their baby, at least in the short term. And partnered parents confront a changed dynamic in their relationship and the need to accommodate a third family member. For many people, these challenges are unexpected, either in nature or magnitude.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Americans today are having fewer children than past generations and are often starting their families later. This reduces the opportunity to learn informally about infant care through raising younger relatives or being around friends with babies.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico New parents are also burdened by the way our society romanticizes early parenthood, especially motherhood. Played out in media imagery, this contributes to perceptions of instant bonding, instinctive breastfeeding and “perfect babies” being cared for by “perfect mothers.” Overly optimistic expectations and a lack of preparation can cause significant distress at a time when new parents already feel vulnerable. For some parents, this may impede bonding with their baby, shade over into postnatal depression – which affects up to 16 percent of new mothers and 5 percent of new fathers – or strain the relationship with their partner.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico **Expectations and experiences**    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico We recently interviewed 45 parents in Australia about their expectations and experiences of early parenthood. The parents came from varied socioeconomic and cultural backgrounds. They included single parents, adoptive parents, parents through surrogacy, same-sex attracted parents, parents in blended or step families and parents who had experienced IVF.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Most parents we interviewed described having “unrealistic” expectations about baby behavior, particularly in relation to crying, sleep patterns and feeding.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico As Susanne, a mother in a same-sex relationship, said: Some parents talked about self-imposing standards that were “too high.” And a few mothers believed this contributed to their experiences of postnatal depression. Melanie, a mother of one who experienced postnatal depression, said trying to “do everything perfectly” had exhausted her and made bonding with her baby difficult. Parents were often surprised to discover a new baby placed their relationship with their partner under strain. Tina, a migrant mother from Iran, said bridging the unexpected and “very deep gap” between her and her husband in early parenthood took time and effort. While most couples’ relationships recovered after an initial period of difficult adjustment, a few ended.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Many parents were distressed by the difference between their expectations and experiences of early parenthood. Some described feelings of anger, anxiety, resentment towards their babies, guilt, or a sense of failure. Those for whom becoming a parent held few “surprises” described less distress, though they still found early parenthood challenging. Many felt that, as a parent-to-be, they had been too focused on pregnancy and childbirth and this was reinforced by their prenatal classes. Sara, a parent of two children, questioned whether “half an hour with the crocheted breast and the doll” was adequate preparation for breastfeeding.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico The trend towards shorter hospital stays after birth was also considered unhelpful. A few women who were able to stay in hospital up to five days appreciated being able to gain infant care skills and establish breastfeeding before going home, where often they had very little formal or informal support.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico **Bridging the gap**    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Based on our research and previous studies, we suggest the following three avenues to prepare expectant mothers and fathers for early parenthood: Prenatal education provided through maternity hospitals is an obvious opportunity for assisting parents to prepare better. Past research has identified a number of shortcomings with antenatal education, including relevance to expecting parents’ needs, reach, teaching style and cost- effectiveness.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Classes could be re-designed to include greater balance between labor and birth and early parenting, and could also involve more peer-to-peer learning, including through inviting new parents to talk about their experiences. In an attempt to recreate the informal learning about early parenting that is no longer as available through family networks, experienced parents can help counter some of the myths of early parenthood by sharing their experiences with expecting parents or those with younger children.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Many concerns can hold parents back from speaking openly with one another. These include a desire to not scare expecting parents with “horror stories,” or a fear of being judged a “bad” parent if they share feelings of doubt and ambivalence. In fact, greater openness can help expecting parents be better prepared for what lies ahead. Finally, the Internet is an increasingly important source of information about pregnancy, labor and birth, and early parenting for expecting and new parents. Hearing other people’s experiences online is particularly valuable.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Maternity hospitals should offer expecting and new parents a guide to useful, reliable online resources on these subjects to counter the sense of “information overload” and the desire for credible information.

A new charter for school for foster kids

Monument Academy, an innovative charter boarding school designed to serve children in foster care, opens in the District in August. The school will try to provide the stable family environment kids in the foster system often lack.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico The school will open with 40 fifth-graders, divided into two classes. It will add one grade a year through eighth grade and eventually serve 160 students, with hopes of expanding through high school. During the week, students will live in groups of about ten, along with two house parents, in a home-like setting on school grounds. Some have criticized the charter sector for not doing enough to serve at-risk children, pointing to the fact that, as compared to the traditional public school sector, fewer charter schools have high concentrations of at-risk students. But Monument Academy, like a few other charters, is taking on the education of at-risk students as its core mission.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico If it’s successful, Monument could address the root causes of many of the difficulties schools with a lot of at-risk students face: dysfunctional home environments and a lack of mental health services. School co-founder and chief executive Emily Bloomfield conceived the idea for Monument after some of her relatives found themselves responsible for two grandchildren, age five and six, who had learning and emotional challenges. The grandparents were overwhelmed, and Bloomfield realized there was no institution that could help them. She also began researching what generally happens to children in foster care and discovered that outcomes were “dismal.” A three-state study showed that by age 24, only 6 percent of foster care alumni had a two- or four-year college degree, and nearly a quarter hadn’t earned a high school diploma or GED. Nearly 40 percent had been homeless since leaving foster care.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Those figures roughly match the situation in D.C., where the Children and Family Services Agency serves about 1,000 kids in foster care, along with another 2,000 receiving services in their homes. Bloomfield cites figures from 2012 showing that 65 percent of those in the foster care system here drop out of high school, and only 4 percent get a four-year college degree.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico [Continue reading Natalie Wexler’s post at DC Eduphile.]    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico _Natalie Wexler blogs atDC Eduphile and Greater Greater Washington and is a member of the board of the D.C. Scholars Public Charter School. The Local Blog Network is a group of bloggers from around the D.C. region who have agreed to make regular contributions to All Opinions Are Local._    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico

Hillary Clinton’s faith in millennials is touching — and profoundly misplaced

Throughout the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia this week, the party's leaders have tried to offer a more hopeful vision of the United States and the world than that offered by Republicans, a vision in which progress toward a more equitable and inclusive society is possible. Yet as events both in this country and abroad have demonstrated over the past few years, ethnic anxieties and racial hostilities continue to shape the decisions of voters and policymakers, proving a stubborn obstacle to the ambitions of progressive politicians worldwide for greater economic and social integration. That essential contradiction was particularly evident in one line from the speech Hillary Clinton gave Thursday night accepting the Democratic nomination for president. Clinton sought to appeal to young voters by looking forward to the more equitable society she suggested they could create.  It was unclear exactly in what sense Clinton meant that young Americans today are more tolerant and more generous, but in one important sense, there is only limited evidence that today's young people are more open-minded than their parents.  Participants in the study, known as the General Social Survey, were asked a long list of questions, including how hardworking they believe members of different groups are. Roughly 31 percent of white millennials rated African Americans as less hardworking than white Americans, compared to 35 percent of white baby boomers. Both generations were less likely to express this prejudice than the Silent Generation (those born between 1928 and 1945) — 46 percent of whom rated African Americans as less hardworking. Progress toward reduced bias seems to have slowed in recent decades, and some of the difference between the Silent Generation and the baby boomers could simply be because the younger generation grew up with different social norms around what is acceptable to say publicly and what is acceptable to tell surveyors. Psychologists also try to measure Americans' unconscious biases, not just what they are willing to say out loud about people of different races. To do so, psychologists ask subjects to rapidly associate words with images of black faces and white faces. Many associated negative words with black faces more readily. Using data from another study, The Post found that 38 percent of white millennials displayed unconscious bias against black faces, compared to about 48 percent of white baby boomers.  One possible explanation for the persistence of racial antipathy across the generations is the possibility that young people receive their views on race from their parents and are unlikely to change them later in life. If so, these hostilities might persist for generations to come.  That pattern, they argued, helped explain why the areas of the South where cotton was grown before the Civil War and where slavery was most prevalent are the areas where white Southerners are still the most racially conservative today. It could be that millennials are more tolerant than their parents, but to the extent that is true, the fact that millennials are a more ethnically and racially diverse group of people is probably the main reason. There is little evidence that white millennials, in particular, are much different than their parents when it comes to attitudes on race. Perhaps that will not matter for Clinton's efforts to turn out young voters at the polls this November. All the same, the persistence of biases among white millennials suggests the politics of race could remain bitterly divisive for decades to come.

Catholic Church in England and Wales apologizes for 30 years of ‘forced’ adoptions

Angela Patrick’s 8-week-old son was sleeping peacefully on that day in 1964 when he was taken out of her arms. The new mother — then 19 — had been living in a Catholic home near London for unmarried women who had committed the ultimate sin and become pregnant. Two months after giving birth, a taxi took her to an adoption charity, where a woman carried Patrick’s baby, Paul, into a room to meet his potential new parents.    Cardinal Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster and President of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, said the practices of adoption agencies at the time were “sometimes lacking in care and sensitivity.” “We apologize for the hurt caused by agencies acting in the name of the Catholic Church,” Nichols said. “Sadly for unmarried mothers, adoption was considered to be in the best interests of the mother and child because of the associated stigma and the lack of support for lone parents,” Nichols added. The documentary, “Britain’s Adoption Scandal: Breaking the Silence,” tells the stories of some of the women who gave up their babies for adoption during the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s. It is scheduled for broadcast on ITV on Nov. 9. About 60 women were interviewed for the documentary. Many of them said they thought they did not have much of a choice at the time. An unmarried mother was considered unfit to care for a baby alone, one of these mothers, Veronica Smith, said in a phone interview with The Washington Post. Smith was 23 years old and unmarried when she became pregnant and was sent to a hostel run by the Catholic Church in Southern England. One week after her daughter was born, the infant was handed over for adoption. For many years, Smith buried the memory of her pregnancy, and of her daughter. But in the early 1990s, “I had a breakdown, and it all came tumbling out,” Smith said. She had to have therapy and psychiatric care. “I feel angry with my mother, the church, myself for being so compliant,” Smith, now 75, said. “I was on this conveyor belt, you know. Once the decision was made, you couldn’t get off.” One of the other mothers interviewed, Jill, recalled in the documentary that people would frequently tell her, “Well, if you love your baby, you’ll give your baby up.” Another mother, identified only by her first name, Margaret, who was sent to a Salvation Army maternity home in West Yorkshire, England, described the shame and guilt she felt at the time. “I would like somebody to say sorry,” she said, but added, “why would anybody say they’re sorry? I was the one that did wrong.”   In Australia, where an estimated 150,000 women had their babies offered up for adoption against their will between the 1950s and ’70s, the prime minister delivered a national apology to the victims in 2013.  “There was no question of these women being found to be unfit mothers; they were simply prevented from becoming mothers at all,” the group wrote. “This experience so traumatised many of these women that they have suffered years of mental and/or physical ill health ever since, and many were unable to have more children.” Smith said she hopes the documentary helps urge Parliament to issue a formal apology, to give those mothers reassurance “that they weren’t bad women.” “We don’t want compensation. We just want acknowledgment,” Smith said in a phone interview. A team of lawyers is now calling for an inquiry into the handling of such adoptions before 1976, Smith said. “These women were told not to speak about what had happened to them,” Carolynn Gallwey, a lawyer with Bhatt Murphy Solicitors, said in the documentary. “But now they’re entitled to have their experiences recognized. And the only way to do that is through a public inquiry.” In a statement to the Guardian, the Church of England expressed regret for its role in the adoptions. “What was thought to be the right thing to do at the time has caused great hurt. That is a matter of great regret,” a representative said. Looking back on the day she was pressured to give up her son for adoption, Patrick said she doesn’t even recall crying when she left the charity. “It was just sort of a horrible noise I was making,” Patrick said. “I remember looking at other people and thinking: ‘You don’t know. You have no idea what I’ve just been asked to do.’ “For you it’s just a normal day, and I’ve just had to give up my baby,” she added.  “When it came to it, we just hugged and didn’t let go,” she said.

Texas bill allows child agencies to deny services based on religion. Some say it targets LGBT families.

The Texas Senate has passed a bill that protects state-funded foster care and adoption agencies that want to make decisions about child care and child placement based on “sincerely held religious beliefs.”  The issue has become a flash point between proponents — who argue that such religious protections give agencies the ability to help an overburdened state welfare system while sticking to their bedrock principles — and those who worry that the bill’s broad language could create an environment of discrimination that will harm children. “We think the primary purpose of this is to permit lesbian, gay and transgender parents to be turned away, but there’s nothing in the bill that prevents agencies from turning away, for example, people who have been divorced, people who are single, or people who don’t go to church enough,” said Rebecca Robertson, legal and policy director for the Texas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. “At every point where a decision about a kid’s care is being made, you could have the rights of the child-welfare provider take precedent over the best interest of the child.” Robertson said that putting personal religious beliefs ahead of the best interests of children means the state is taking away a primary layer of protection for children. “The state needs to have the ability to always put the best interest of the child first, and this bill undermines that protection,” she said. Most agree that Texas’s child welfare system is overloaded, with more than 16,000 children in state foster care, according to the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services. Earlier this month, Texas state Rep. James Frank (R-Wichita Falls), the author of the bill, said that Texas is struggling to find quality foster homes in part because religious organizations fear their positions on sensitive issues could lead them into trouble.  Frank said House Bill 3859 protects faith-based foster care and adoption agencies while also requiring the Department of Family and Protective Services to make sure that there are alternative providers ready to assist anyone who is denied services on religious grounds. Presented as protecting religious beliefs, the bill also specifies that agencies cannot discriminate based on race, ethnicity or national origin. “Not one foster parent/family who wants to provide a home for our kids will be denied from doing so,” he said. “Not one.” Jennifer Carr Allmon, executive director of the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops, said the purpose of the bill is “to increase foster care capacity to ensure a diverse network of families and providers are ready to serve.” “Providing conscience protection for families will enable pastors to encourage loving families to be part of a caring network for these children,” she said in a statement. “It will also allow faith-based providers to re-engage with Texas Department of Family Protective Services (DFPS), bringing the expertise and resources of Catholic Charities to the aid of some of our most desperate and needy children.”   Will Francis, government relations director for the Texas chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, said he has “major concerns” about the bill. If a child is denied services because of their foster parents’ religious convictions, he said, “it’s up to the child — the person who’s been denied the service — to find an alternative service.” And Robertson, with the ACLU, said most children are not going to know how to advocate for themselves.

Friendly faces make camp a welcoming place

When the campers in **Drew-Taylor McCrae’s** cabin find out, they have a lot of questions: Was she mad? Did she try to run away? Did she want to leave her adopted family for her birth family? “I don’t mind telling them my story,” says Drew-Taylor, one of the Camp Moss Hollow counselors who oversee Cedar Hill, the cabins for 12- to 14-year-old girls. Part of her story involves Moss Hollow itself, where she was a camper when she was 11, along with a sister and cousin. “We had a lot of fun,” says Drew-Taylor, now 23. “We wanted to come back, but we never did.” Until this year, that is. Drew-Taylor ran into someone she recognized from Moss Hollow — at a kickball game, of all places. He is now a counselor, and he suggested she become one, too. The idea appealed to her. Drew-Taylor has a year left at Bowie State, where she’s studying psychology. She plans to get a master’s and then a PhD on her way to becoming a children’s therapist. What better place to find children than at a summer camp? “I just want to see how they interact,” she says. And she thinks she has something to offer. When she was 13, Drew-Taylor’s mother sat her down and told her she was adopted. “She said that my birth mother couldn’t take care of me because of other situations in her life,” remembers Drew-Taylor, who lives in Temple Hills. She never met her birth mother, who passed away several years ago. But three years ago, she found out she had siblings. Two years ago, she met them for the first time. She was amazed at how alike they all are. Drew-Taylor says her adopted mother was worried about her reaction, that she might prefer her biological family. But she wasn’t mad. “My adopted family is _amazing_ ,” she says. She thinks her experience gives her special insight into some of her campers, especially those who are adopted or growing up in the foster-care system. “I know some of those feelings those kids go through,” she says. “I can say, ‘Oh, I felt that.’ ” Drew-Taylor said she knows some of the campers don’t come from the best home situations. “I encourage them to think of this as a safe place.” “They keep trying to imitate my voice,” says counselor **Chris Wake** of the campers he oversees in the Deerhorn unit, home to the older boys. “That doesn’t go so well.” Chris, 21, hails from Newcastle, and he speaks with the inflections of northern England. He’s among the counselors who have come to Moss Hollow as part of Camp America, a program that places youths from around the world at U.S. summer camps. Chris has a year left at the University of Liverpool, where he studies history. Most of Chris’s friends from back home are goofing off this summer or going to the pub. He wanted to see what America was like, what American kids are like. And? “They’re loud,” he laughs. “A lot louder than English kids.” He’s noticed something: The best-behaved boys are the ones who have been coming to Camp Moss Hollow the longest. Though it’s been a challenging summer, it’s been a good one, too. “A kid came up to me and said, ‘You’re my favorite unit staff for the whole four years I’ve been here,’ ” Chris recounts. “That made my week.” Moss Hollow is in a lovely setting — rural Fauquier County — but it’s the people as much as the scenery that make it such a soothing place for at-risk kids from our area. It’s counselors such as Drew-Taylor and Chris. My annual Send a Kid to Camp campaign ends Friday. If you’ve already donated, thank you very much. If you haven’t, I hope you will. A donor is matching all gifts made between now and the campaign’s end, up to a total of $100,000. Clyde’s Restaurant Group is offering an incentive, too: If you donate $150 to $249, you will receive a $25 gift certificate for Clyde’s. Donate $250 or more for a $50 one. (Certificates will be sent in September.) Our goal is $500,000. Our total so far: $354,668.77. To donate, simply go to washingtonpost.com/camp and click where it says “Give Now.” Or send a check, made payable to “Send a Kid to Camp,” to Send a Kid to Camp, Family Matters of Greater Washington, P.O. Box 200045, Pittsburgh, Pa., 15251-0045. I’m off next week. I’ll announce how we fared when I return the week of Aug. 12.

Russia’s ban on American adoptions won’t go into effect until next year

MOSCOW — The Kremlin suddenly announced Thursday evening that  a new law banning adoptions by Americans would not go into effect for another year, as criticism of the measure galvanizes the flagging opposition here. The move brings hope to Americans whose efforts to adopt Russian children were cut short by the enactment of the law in late December, but it is not clear what practical effect the delay will have. A protest against the law is planned for Sunday in Moscow. An adoption agreement between Russia and the United States reached last year remains in force, Dmitri Peskov, the main Kremlin spokesman, told the RIA Novosti news agency Thursday. He pointed out that the agreement requires 12 months’ notice for either side to withdraw. Russia, he said, delivered that notice to the U.S. Embassy on Jan. 1, although until now it has been portrayed as an immediate cancellation. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said the United States did not know what the Kremlin announcement means for adoptions already in progress. “We are very hopeful that in the spirit of the original agreement and out of humanitarian concern that we will be able to work through those cases that had been begun,” she said. As Russians return from their long New Year’s break, it has become clear that the adoption issue has struck a deep chord here and energized a dispirited opposition. The law was intended as a snub to the United States, but many here say its primary victims are Russian orphans. Evidence of the nasty and manipulative nature of the debate over adoption emerged Thursday in Chelyabinsk, in Russia’s Ural Mountains, when a news Web site reported that a 14-year-old orphan, Maxim Kargapoltsev, had written President Vladimir Putin asking to be allowed to join his new family, Mil and Dianna Wallen, in Woodstock, Va. The Web post brought stinging denunciations from supporters of the adoption ban, who called it a provocation. Lawmaker Yekaterina Lakhova, one of the sponsors of the legislation, called the report an “attack against Russia.” As it turns out, there probably was no letter. Maxim had told a Web site reporter last month that he wished he could leave for his new home, and the site apparently decided to crank the story up a bit. That’s according to the director of the orphanage where Maxim lives and a local reporter, Inna Kumeiko, who met with the boy on Thursday morning. Maxim couldn’t be reached from Moscow, but he made his feelings clear in a social media post Wednesday night. “I am very sorry,” he wrote, “that the law will not let me have a very good family in the future, the family that I have known and loved and whom I have become attached to. “I like my motherland, but I would like to have a family in the U.S. “I really wish I could personally see VVP [Putin] and all those who adopted the law.” Maxim didn’t see Putin on Thursday, but he did see the regional governor, Mikhail Yurevich, who swept in after news of Maxim’s plight got out. He gave the boy a new tablet computer and a laptop, dispensed phones to other orphans and promised Maxim that he could travel — to Israel — to get some medical issues resolved. Later in the day, Sergei Vainshtein, a member of parliament from the nationalistic Liberal Democratic Party who represents Chelyabinsk, told the Interfax news agency that he is ready to take Maxim in and provide him a good education. The two have never met. The Wallens, who have two grown sons, have been visiting Orphanage 13 in Chelyabinsk for more than a decade, on missions for the United Methodist Church. They estimate that over the years they have delivered hundreds of thousands of dollars in aid, which has gone toward repairs, computers, Internet access and other features not provided by the government — or the governor. They got to know Maxim about two years ago and decided to try to adopt him. Maxim has been in state care since being abandoned as a baby. “We just want him to have a mom and dad,” Wallen said. “I hope I spend my next birthday here,” Maxim wrote in a post in early December, attaching a Google map of Woodstock. No adoption agencies were working in Chelyabinsk, so the Wallens were trying to arrange the adoption independently, which required them to jump through even more hoops than usual. Their quest hit a big paperwork roadblock in November. “I feel God has called me to Russia, and to offer hope to these children,” Wallen said. Russians, she said, her voice breaking with emotion, must surely understand that the orphans who leave institutional care to go to the United States are loved and cherished by their adoptive parents. But of the 60,000 Russian children adopted by Americans over the past two decades, 19 have died. Some of those cases have attracted a lot of attention in Russia, where there has long been an undercurrent of uneasiness over the adoptions, but where little has been done to persuade Russian couples to take in orphaned children. The bilateral agreement — now apparently back in force — allows closer Russian monitoring of the orphans who go to the United States. But it had seemingly fallen victim to the anti-American mood that swept through the Russian parliament after the passage in Washington of a bill that places financial and visa sanctions on corrupt Russian officials. The answer to the U.S. measure was what supporters called the Dima Yakovlev law, named for a Russian toddler who died in 2008 after being left unattended in a hot car in a Virginia parking lot. Its opponents call it the “child-   eater” law because it makes life worse for Russian orphans. Organizers of the Sunday march cast it as a citizens’ protest, not a political rally. More than 15,000 people, some of whom say they would not go to a typical political demonstration, have registered for it on Russian social media. The newspaper Novaya Gazeta said it had collected more than 100,000 signatures on a petition calling for parliament to be disbanded because of the adoption law. Kim Summers of Freehold, N.J., said she was buoyed by Thursday’s announcement. She and her husband were just weeks away from bringing home their adopted son, Preston, from Russia when the legislation hit. “It’s been a roller coaster, because up until three weeks ago we thought we’d be bringing our son home, and with everything that’s going on, we’re still not out of the woods,” she said. Summers said she and her husband are ready to fly to Russia as soon as they hear more about what the ruling means. “God willing, it means we’ll be picking up our son,” she said. Tara Bahrampour in Washington contributed to this report.

The irresistible call of ‘Duck Dynasty’ at adoption gala

In these tenuous times, we found something _else_ that divides us: “Duck Dynasty.” While diehard fans excitedly pepper the cast with hunting questions, others stare at the bearded guy and wonder “What’s a ‘Duck Dynasty’?”    *[WSU]: Wayne State University That’s how it went Wednesday night, when Willie and Korie Robertson showed up at the Reagan Building. The stars of the smash hit A&E; reality show (about multimillionaire duck call manufacturers) took a break from filming in their home of Louisiana to receive the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute’s annual Angels in Adoption award — the couple adopted their son, Will, when he was an infant.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University Clad in jeans and his trademark American flag bandana, Willie – CEO of the family-owned business — displayed the charm that  made the Robertsons TV stars. “I really didn’t know what exactly this was, I’ll admit,” he told the crowd. His wife gave him his marching orders about the trip to D.C.: “You don’t have to wear a suit, food will be free, and we’re talking about adoption.” His advice on the shutdown? “I understand what it’s like – you should try to get Uncle Si to make duck calls in the duck call room. It’s probably harder running the government of the United States.” (Yeah, it went over our heads, too.) It’s rare when a reality TV star overshadows an actually movie star, but there you go. Hugh Jackman — one of People’s “Sexiest Man Alive,” no less — deliberately took a backseat to his honoree wife, Australian actress Deborra-lee Furness. The couple has two adopted children, Oscar and Ava, but Jackman never took the stage in order to give his advocate wife the spotlight. Instead, Oscar Jackman appeared with his mom. “He wanted to come up here tonight, which he doesn’t normally do,” Furness said. Oscar shyly pulled at his sleeves as mom explained he recently took a lineage test  and was proud to discover he’s from North Africa and Bosnia. The evening, filled with more touching stories about adoption and foster care, was decidedly lighthearted, thanks to evening’s hosts, Sean and Leigh Anne Tuohy – the couple depicted in “The Blind Side” who adopted Baltimore Ravens player Michael Oher. “How many people here haven’t seen ‘The Blind Side’?” asked Leigh Anne. “Most of you aren’t working now,” cracked  Sean. “You can go see it!” Furlough jokes — and yes, people laughed. _MoreReliable Source: _Joe Scarborough; “Love Story”; Chelsea Clinton; Julian Assange; Marilyn Monroe; Michelle Obama; Jonas Brothers; Janet Yellen; Alan Dixon; Kris Jenner; Josh Duggar    *[WSU]: Wayne State University

OSCE supports U.S.-Russian adoptions

MOSCOW — A 57-country conflict-resolution organization on Tuesday urged Russia to allow adoptions to proceed for the 300 U.S. families who had begun the process when a ban was imposed on Americans. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, founded during the Cold War to mediate disputes over arms and human rights, avoided singling out Russia by name. But the resolution, passed in an overwhelming vote, took clear aim at the ban on U.S. adoptions Russia imposed Jan. 1. The resolution refers to intercountry adoptions and “urges participating States to resolve differences, disputes, and controversies related to intercountry adoptions in a positive and humanitarian spirit.” It also asks for special efforts to “avoid disruption of intercountry adoptions already in progress that could jeopardize the best interests of the child, harm the nascent family or deter prospective adoptive parents from pursuing an intercountry adoption.” The measure was introduced at the OSCE annual meeting in Istanbul by U.S. Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), who told the assembly it was unfair to change the rules after parents and children had met. The resolution carries moral authority rather than force of law, but Wicker said in a telephone interview that it sent a strong message that would support the United States in negotiations with Russia over the children who had bonded with families. “It adds legitimacy to the concerns,” he said and gives weight to U.S. arguments when Secretary of State John F. Kerry discusses the issue with his Russian counterparts. Although a Russian delegate spoke against the resolution, a show of hands for the vote gave it widespread support. Before the debate, delegates were shown a film, “The Dark Matter of Love,” about an American family adopting three Russian children, which documented how the attachments formed by a loving family deeply affect childhood development. “All of these families deserve a happy ending,” Wicker told the assembly.

Please don’t tell me I was lucky to be adopted

I’ve never been good at embracing my story, but lately I’ve found help in the most unlikely of places: my 7-year-old daughter, Ara. A few months ago a good friend relayed a conversation she had just overheard between Ara and the friend’s 6-year-old son. “I heard you were talking to Graham about adoption?” I asked Ara later. “Yeah,” she said. “What did you say?” I asked. “I just said that I’m kind of like an adoptee, but instead of being taken away from my brown mom, I was taken away from my brown grandma.” I was stunned. There she was, then 6, expressing her feelings about my adoption so clearly. She was able to acknowledge that like me, she, too, feels she has been cut off from her family, her culture and her story and that she is missing a part of who she is. And Graham was such a wonderful friend to her. He listened, asked a question or two, and, most important, didn’t shut her down by telling her she was too sensitive or overreacting. In my almost 40 years, I’ve only recently been able to talk about adoption honestly and openly. And it is incredibly difficult. At 4 months old, I was flown from my orphanage in India to my adoptive parents in Groton, Mass. I would never say I didn’t have a good childhood — I did. My life was enviable in too many ways to mention. But what’s also true is that adoption is a traumatic, lifelong experience that is rarely recognized as one. Unfortunately, there is no way to convince a non-adoptee that adoption is hard and that its effects continue into adulthood unless that person is willing to hear it. And in my experience, few have been. For me, being an adoptee is like getting into a horrible car accident and surviving with devastating injuries. But instead of anybody acknowledging the trauma of the accident, they tell you that you should feel lucky. Even if the injuries never stop hurting, never quite heal. Even if the injuries make it impossible to feel comfortable in everyday life. So I learned not to talk about it. Even though my bones ached. For some reason, my amazing kid knows that she is allowed to talk about how that car accident has made an impact on her life, even if you can’t see any visible scars on me and even if she wasn’t there when it happened. Adoption loss is truly multi-generational. In her younger years, Ara was always coming up with ways we could find _our_ missing family. “Maybe, Momma, if we … call the orphanage or go to India or write a letter … we could find them.” I wish I had had the strength to verbalize this primal need when I was a child. But I didn’t. I’m still learning how to express it. I sometimes imagine what my life would have been like if I had had her confidence. If I had felt safe enough to claim my story and the pain of being an adoptee. If I had felt secure that I could share it openly. And if I had believed people would support me when I did. I probably wouldn’t have wished to die so often starting when I was 11. And I probably wouldn’t have started cutting myself when I was 12. I know that not every adoptee has had the same experiences that I have had, but I also know that my story isn’t unique. Adoptees are about 2.5 times as likely to attempt suicide than non-adoptees, according to a 2001 study of adopted adults published by the American Academy of Pediatrics. A 2000 study in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry concluded that adoptees are twice as likely as non-adoptees to have received counseling. And prevalence of substance abuse was 43 percent higher among adoptees than non-adoptees, according to a 2012 study published in the journal PLOS One. Adoptees are often so busy trying to prove that we’re fine, that it’s too late when we realize we’re not. At some point, I stopped running a knife across my wrist, but for many years, that was my solution to denying — and being denied — my truth. The physical pain of cutting numbed my emotional pain, and it helped me close the gap between my two falsely dichotomous selves: the “happy” adoptee who had everything given to her and the angry adoptee who had everything taken away. On the one hand I was having a regular life with friends and sports and sleepovers and school. But I was also always wondering where I came from, who I looked like, when my real birthday was and if my mother was thinking about me when I was thinking about her. Did my mother love me? And if she didn’t, why not? What was wrong with me? Why would people tell me that my mother loved me so much that she gave me away? I was also trying to understand why everyone thought I should be grateful because I was adopted. Or why they told me that my adoptive parents saved me. Or why people felt that being upset or angry is an irrational response to living, forever, with no answers. Can you imagine being the only person in the world you know you’re related to? On top of this internal, secret questioning, I was carrying the weight of growing up in an all-white town in an all-white family, unbearably alone and hopelessly on display. It was impossible for me to embrace adopted-ness, or brownness or Indian-ness. And there was no space for me to be confident or beautiful because I was too busy wanting to be white or petite or not-adopted, like my friends. A few weeks ago in my daughter’s gymnastics class, a little white girl looked up at me and gushed, “You are so beautiful!” I couldn’t believe it. I am so grateful that my daughter is growing up in a community where brown can be beautiful. Where she doesn’t have to wish her skin white. My daughter tells me all the time, especially if I’m going out and am dressed up — “Oh, Amma, you’re so beautiful.” She loves my heels, and especially the Indian outfits. The more important part, though, as I watch her put on my heels and the Indian clothes, as she stands in front of the mirror checking herself out, is that she thinks she’s beautiful. Obviously, it’s not just about being grateful that she can see her beauty. I still worry about how she’ll continue to process her place in the world. Adoptees and our children, despite being connected to each other, can still feel alone, without extended families or roots or anybody who looks like us. There is that inescapable feeling that many of us, ourselves and our kids, have: that we could, at any moment, just float away into the ether because we have nothing to hold on to. I hope my daughter always feels confident in her beauty and strength. And I hope she’s always willing to tell me her truth. And even more so, I hope I’m always willing to hear her. Especially if she stops being confident, as I did. And especially if she stops talking, as I did. As she says herself, she already feels like an adoptee. Shaaren Pine lives in Washington.To comment on this story, e-mail wpmagazine@washpost.com or visit washingtonpost.com/magazine. E-mail us at wpmagazine@washpost.com. For more articles, as well as features such as Date Lab, Gene Weingarten and more, visit The Washington Post Magazine. Follow the Magazine on Twitter. Like us on Facebook.

Our international adoptions weren’t “meant to be” and our kids weren’t “so lucky”

Our international adoptions weren’t meant to be and our kids aren’t “so lucky.” Our children are adopted from China. My husband and I aren’t Chinese, so our adoptions are out there, visible. People see it right away. When we chose international adoption, we knew we’d become a multiracial family in a blink. As such, we’ve learned to get used to (or at least ignore) the stares, awkward questions and over-the-top rude remarks. While most comments and questions are kind and well-meaning, there are a couple of things people say to us that make me faintly uncomfortable. Okay, a lot uncomfortable. “It’s meant to be.” “They’re so lucky.” These remarks often accompany “your children are adorable.” I mean, they are adorable. I don’t get why people just can’t leave it there. When someone tells me my children are lucky to be with me or that their presence in our family is “meant to be,” I want so badly to correct them, to explain what the view looks like from this side of things, but I usually just smile and nod. I avert my eyes, look at my shoes, examine my cuticles and check my phone. It’s kind of an awkward conversation to have with a stranger, or someone I don’t know well, but I don’t feel like my children are “meant to be” with our family. While I cannot imagine life without my two loud, sticky boys, I have a hard time getting on board with the fact that anyone would call being abandoned as a baby and living in an orphanage for three years as something that was meant to be. Three years of going to bed without a mother’s kiss good night. Three years without knowing the love and security of a family. Three years without having a real name of your own, just the one that was issued to you. No matter what your belief system is, you can’t label that situation as meant to be, fate or destiny. Saying our adoptions are meant to be implies that the universe (or whatever higher power you believe in) meant for these children…or any children…to be without a family…to be alone. What about all the children that don’t get adopted? What about the children in the foster care system? Do we point to their lives and call it meant to be or is that just a phrase reserved for when there’s a happy ending? I don’t like to bash people for word choices. The lady in the grocery store who smiles at my family and tells my kids how lucky they are probably means no harm. But those words can, in fact, be harmful because they imply that my children should be grateful that they have parents. This isn’t the message I want to send to my kids. My kids aren’t lucky. Our adoptions weren’t meant to be. Their birth families chose not to parent them. We can only speculate about the reasoning for this but both of my kids had birth defects and I’m certain that contributed to the decision. The questions haven’t come yet, but they will before too much longer. Questions like “why didn’t they keep me,” or “did my birth mom love me?” Hard questions to answer. I’ll do my best to be truthful and sensitive but I’m pretty sure my answer won’t be any form of “meant to be.” To say that would be to dismiss the significance of my children’s beginnings and to minimize the difficult choices his birth mother had to make. Adoption isn’t a miracle. It’s a choice and not an easy one. Not from any perspective. And while adoption can be all about happy endings and building families, some sort of loss precedes any adoption situation. Most people don’t stop to consider that side of it. Maybe because it’s uncomfortable to think about the less rosy side of adoption. Maybe because “meant to be” is more socially palatable. Maybe because they just don’t think. The next time you think about using the phrase “meant to be” in relation to a family formed through adoption or the next time you think about complimenting a family for adopting, I challenge you to stop and examine the other side of the coin. Think about what hardships the child might have endured before they were adopted. Think about the loss felt by the birth mothers who made a tough choice. I love my children fiercely. I’m thankful every day that they’re in my life and we celebrate the day they came to us. I can’t imagine it would even be possible to love them more than I do. I am their forever after but I am not their “meant to be.” I am their plan B. And I am okay with that. _Jill Robbins writes about adoption, motherhood and midlife on her blog,Ripped Jeans and Bifocals. She has a degree in social psychology that she uses to try and make sense out of the behavior of her husband and children, but it hasn’t really helped so far. You can follow Jill on Facebook and Twitter._    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico **Check outOn Parenting on Facebook for more essays, advice and news. Sign up for our newsletter here**.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico _You might also be interested in:_    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Am I too sensitive about adoption?    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico A baby in Morocco    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Finding my birth mother in the notes of a song    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico

What it’s like to be a teen parent: readers’ stories

After we wrote about Colorado’s success in cutting teen pregnancy rates, more than 100 people responded to our questions about their experiences as a teen parent or as the child of teen parents.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Storyline will continue to feature individual stories over time, but to read these responses as a whole, one entry after another, is to be deeply moved by their honesty. These words of mothers and fathers — some still raising toddlers, many looking back at their experiences with the perspective that only comes with time — are wrenching, inspiring and challenging.  They’re odes to parenthood, love letters to sons and daughters, expressions of regret – not for the lives of their children, but for the limits of their youth. Above all, they are testaments to perseverance. [emailtext title="Teen Pregnancy" linktext="Tell us your story"]Have a story to share about teen pregnancy? Let us hear from you[/emailtext] “We do not hear the success stories often, and when we do, it almost seems people fear that by telling them, we are somehow encouraging other teens to become parents,”  writes Christina Martinez, 34, who writes Life, Interrupted, a blog that offers support to young parents and who is part of the #NoTeenShame campaign on Twitter. “I don’t look at it that way. I think by sharing our triumphs, we are encouraging other young families to dream big and aim for success and balance.” The stories of readers serve as a reminder that generalization is easy but the details of individual lives are much more complex. “It’s the idea that we are so broken that help is beyond our reach,” writes Tanya Robinson, 37, of South Carolina., who placed her two children up for adoption.  “There are those that think still, that being pregnant as a teen eliminates most, if not all, of our ability to think responsibly. We understand that being pregnant so young adds tenfold to the issues that we face as a teen. We also understand that by choosing to carry a baby full term means that we become a part of a systematic statistic, not only in our communities but also in society as a whole.” The desire to avoid becoming a statistic ran through many of the responses. In some cases, it fueled a streak of defiance, a lifting of the chin and setting of the jaw that said: Judge me all you will; I will prove you wrong. “There is always that feeling that you failed,” says Margarita Serko, 32, of Los Angeles, whose daughter is 13. “Failed your family’s expectations for you, failed yourself, became another statistic, another single mother on the block. I was fortunate to have been surrounded by an extremely supportive family. But every time explaining to people that ‘No, I’m not a babysitter, and this is not my sister,’ I would get the pity look. The truth is that I was more fortunate and happier than they were. I had a little anger, my engine, my fuel that was giving me endless power to move forward and achieve.” Responses came from those who lived in poverty and those who did not, from those with families who supported them and those with families who ostracized them, from women forced into unhappy marriages and women who married high school sweethearts and, years later, are still married. We heard from women who wished they had been able to make time and find money for college and those who went on to get multiple advanced degrees. Readers offered reflections from across generations, parents of the ‘60s, as well as those of the 2010s. In that way, the stories also served as reminders that teen pregnancy is always viewed through evolving social norms and economic contexts. But across all generations, to be young, pregnant and single is to be a target of judgment. These mothers have never forgotten the high school administrators who refused to allow them to walk with the rest of the class at graduation, the teacher who set a desk outside her room because she did not want to teach a pregnant girl, the baby shower denied, the turned back of a onetime friend. “We live in a society that prefers to pass judgment on people they have determined make poor choices rather than a society that values helping people overcome their prior choices,” writes Alicia Brown, 33, a registered nurse, graduate student and mother of a 15-year-old and 16-year-old. Sometimes the harshest judges were the parents themselves. “The saddest thing about being a young parent is that you have nothing to offer your children but yourself and you are only partially formed,” writes Kimberly Kattas, 46, of Ohio, who married at 15, divorced at 23 and had six children by the time she was 21. “By the time you’re mature enough to be ready to parent, and cherish the chore of parenting, your children are grown. And you’ve made all the mistakes that you can never take back no matter how many times you apologize, or how understanding your now-adult children are — you only have that lame excuse, “’I was only a child myself.’” But if it all the responses had to be reduced to the most dominant theme, it would be this: My child gave my life focus. My child saved me from myself. My child was my strength. “She made me want to be better,” Candice Schmitz, 29, of Mount Washington, Ky., says of her 15-year-old daughter, Becca. “She made me want to be a better person. And I had to do that for her.” Readers offered much encouragement to young parents, and Michelle Robles, 37, of Yonkers, New York sums it up nicely. Robles is an administrator of special education for the New York City Department of Education. Her daughter, Maylene, soon will turn 20 and is in college. “You can choose for your life to crumble around you and watch your dreams go down the drain, or you can choose to stand up and press on,” she writes. “You decide when it’s over. Life is full of challenges, and having a baby is one, but it is not the deciding factor to your life story.”

Our little boy was worth the wait

Eight hundred thirty-two days. Worth the wait. My name is Tara Montgomery. I’m a single mother and an administrative secretary at a high school in Arizona — and, on Dec. 20, 2016, I officially adopted my 3-year-old son, Michael. My first adopted child. My daughter, who wanted to savor the moment, snapped a photograph of Michael, one victorious fist raised in the air, another hand holding a chalkboard with a few words written in marker: “Some things are worth the wait,” the sign read. “After 832 days in foster care, today I’m adopted.”   Michael first entered our lives as a foster child on Feb. 14, 2015. My decision to become a foster mother wasn’t easy (or quick). I never expected to become one. My daughters’ dad passed away in 2001, and I was a single mother raising three young daughters in a tumultuous economy. But a few colleagues approached me: Are you willing to use your experience and speak with teenagers who have lost a parent? I said yes. I talked to them. I counseled them. As time went on, though, I began noticing more and more students who didn’t have anyone. My heart felt for these children and their circumstances. It’s not their fault — and it’s sad to see anyone in a situation where they’re moving through life without guidance from someone who loves them. One day, after being approached by another colleague at the school where I work, my daughters and I made the choice. We were going to do what we could with what we had to make a difference to children who had nothing. I became a foster mother — and my daughters became foster sisters. We welcomed three children into our family, one at a time, acknowledging that each welcome would be temporary: a short-term relief for these kiddos whose immediate futures were unclear. In early 2015, I received a phone call from the Arizona Department of Child Safety, which handles foster care in our state. “We need to move a little boy to a new home,” said the voice on the other end of the line. “Are you interested?” Yes. We personally picked him up from the parking lot of a mall. Our fourth foster child, and his third foster home. That Valentine’s Day in 2015, Michael joined our family in what we all assumed would be a temporary living situation in this 18-month-old boy’s transition to a more permanent home. And that’s when everything changed.  I wasn’t looking to adopt a new child. I have three daughters to care for — and a baby granddaughter. All we set out to do was to make sure that kids without parents didn’t have to worry, if only for a short period of time, about what would happen to them. There were plans in motion to reunite Michael with his biological mother, and I was proud of being able to give him relief until that happened. The next 22 months went fast. Michael’s presence brightened our lives as much as we hoped to brighten his life through fostering. His laugh. His smile. His energy. It became a part of our home’s ecosystem. It was an instant connection. Now, let’s be clear: Our foster experience wasn’t a cakewalk. Michael suffered from asthma attacks for which we had to take him to the doctor — more than a few times. We had to carry around his inhalers and learn how to use EpiPens. We visited doctors, emergency rooms and specialists 26 times in the first year. He was a sick little guy. I wasn’t the first foster mother (and won’t be the last) to look into the mirror after an all-nighter with my new child and say to myself, “I don’t know what I’m getting myself into.” But, as often happens, overcoming these bumps in the road has made our family stronger. Michael developed an incredibly special bond with my youngest daughter while dealing with these issues. Whenever he has a particularly bad asthma attack, the only person he wants to sleep next to is her. He’s comforted by her presence, and she’s comforted by being “that person” in his life. They adore each other in a way that may not have happened otherwise — at least not as quickly. From changing his diaper, putting on his shoes, or simply pouring him a drink at dinner and snuggling with him at night, as Michael grew, my daughters grew, too.  Michael loves trucks and trains. He loves running on the sand at the beach, seeing the waves come in and waving at the seals as they lie on the wet rocks. Only 3 years old, he calls the beach his “happy place.”   And that’s why, when the next phone call came — informing us that the ongoing efforts to reunite Michael with his biological mother had fallen through — it didn’t take long for my daughters and me to decide. Everything had seamlessly clicked into place from the beginning: This little boy came to us on Valentine’s Day. He came to us on Arizona’s birthday. He has the same last name as my biological daughters. He looks like them. He has our sense of humor. He made our family stronger. And, more than that, we never wanted him to wonder again where he might end up next. So, on Dec. 20, 2016, we adopted Michael — and he became a permanent part of our family. He woke up a few days later on Christmas morning to a tree with presents under it. He flung open the wrapping paper to find Thomas the Tank Engine trains and a new bicycle, all while being surrounded by new, permanent family members for the first time — people who loved him and cared for him and would continue to do so forever.   I can’t promise that every step of the way will be easy or that you won’t wonder whether it’s worth the upcoming speed bump in the road. What I can promise is this: Whatever you face on your route to adoption, the smile on your child’s face will be worth it. It took me 42 years to realize what it feels like to adopt a child, this beautiful little boy, into my life. More than 15,000 days. Worth the wait.

Anthony Brown highlights relationship with adopted son in his latest TV ad for governor

Maryland Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Anthony G. Brown’s latest television ad highlights his relationship with his adopted son, along with Brown’s practice of promoting adoption and foster care during church visits. The 30-second spot, airing on Baltimore television stations, is the fourth released by the Brown campaign and builds upon earlier efforts to flesh out the biography of the lieutenant governor in advance of the June primary. While Brown has advocated policies both as a government official and as a candidate to facilitate adoption and foster care, the ad makes only passing references to those efforts. It instead focuses on Brown’s personal story, showing images of him and 13-year-old Jonathan shooting a basketball in a gym. “I never knew the impact that adoption could have on a life until Jonathan came into mine,” Brown, a former Prince George’s County delegate, tells viewers. Brown is also depicted in a church as he describes his efforts “to share the story of Jonathan, the joy he has brought to my life, how amazing a young man he is.” Aides say Brown has made dozens of visits to churches to promote adoption since taking office. Brown faces Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler and Del. Heather R. Mizeur (Montgomery) in the Democratic primary for governor. Both Brown and Gansler launched their first television ads early last month. Mizeur has yet to take to the airwaves. On Monday, Brown’s first ads debuted in the more expensive Washington area market. Gansler has already run ads there, as well as in Baltimore.

Russia is one of the most popular countries for U.S. adoptions

Shortly after announcing that he supports a bill that would prevent Americans from adopting Russian children, Russian President Vladimir Putin said the prospect of a better life in America shouldn't be a reason to send Russian children overseas. "Probably there are quite a lot of places in the world where living standards are somewhat better than we have. And so what? Will we send all our children there? Perhaps we will move there ourselves?" Putin said at a State Council session at the Kremlin on Thursday, according to the Interfax news agency. The ban, if implemented, would have a severe impact on U.S. families seeking an international adoption. Russia is one of the most popular countries for U.S.-based adoptions, with 970 last year, as the percentage of children who are designated orphans there is four to five times higher than in Europe or the United States. It's interesting to note that most of those children -- up to 80 percent \-- are so-called "social orphans." They actually have parents, but, for reasons ranging from alcoholism to limited resources for coping with disabilities, their parents have turned them over to state care. However, China is still the most popular country for U.S. adoptions. More than 2,500 Chinese children were adopted by Americans last year, in part because the Beijing government's one-child policy has inadvertently encouraged couples to abort or abandon baby girls in large numbers. China is also one of the easiest countries for international adoptions, according to a CNN report: The process takes about two years and costs between $19,000 and $23,000. (The cost is about $50,000 for Russia.) Ethiopia is also a prime source country, with 1,727 adoptions to the United States last year out of a population of just 84,734,262. The Wall Street Journal reported earlier this year on the country's "adoption boom," which has occurred in part thanks to "loose controls that make it one of the fastest places to adopt a child." Unfortunately, that's come with reports of reluctant, impoverished birth parents being defrauded by middlemen seeking a cut of the adoption fees. In Russia, officials seemed to expand their anti-adoption mission this week beyond their immediate conflict with the U.S. government, with children's ombudsman Pavel Astakhov saying the country might shut down all orphanages in Russia within five to seven years, leaving only specialized institutions. Putin also pledged to issue another decree that would offer greater support for orphaned children inside Russia. "It is certainly necessary to support proposals that everything needs to be done inside our own country in order to give all of our children, including those left without parental care or orphaned children, a worthy future," Putin said.

Researchers have found a really good reason not to be an optimist

"Reach for the stars" is the sort of uplifting advice parents impart on their children, coaches pass along to their players, and people all over the place repeat to themselves. And for good reason: A life outlook that, generally speaking, assumes the best, has many tangible benefits. Positive thinking has been linked to better relationships, increased happiness, and health.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico But optimism has its limits. In fact, it can be a pretty wasteful way to approach life. "As a rule, you'll get the advice that it's better to be optimistic," said Don Moore, a professor at the Berkeley Haas School of Business, who studies overconfidence and how it affects people's lives. "But the truth is that it makes no difference. Sometimes it's even worse." Moore's most recent research, a study published last month, explores this very tension: between the perceived benefits of optimism, and the actual results the attitude produces. Moore, along with his colleague Jennifer Logg and Elizabeth Tenney, who teaches at the University of Utah, tested the notion that optimism pays off through a series of five experiments. In one, the researchers tested how often people favored optimism; in another, they gauged how much people associated the mentality with better outcomes; and in the remaining three, they put the positive outlook to test, measuring whether optimism actually leads to improved performances.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico What they found are essentially three things. The first is that people tend to believe that optimism boosts the likelihood of success. Not only were participants more likely to say that positive thinking helps boost motivation—they also associate the mentality with positive outcomes. The second is that when people believe that they can do something—rightly or wrongly—they tend to try harder, or at least for longer, to accomplish it. In one experiment, for instance, participants spent a good deal longer looking for Waldo in Where's Waldo when they were convinced they would find him. The third and most sobering of the three findings is that in every case optimism didn't produce any measurable improvement in performance. Those people who kept their head up and spirits high, looking longer and more intently for Waldo, still didn't find him. Nor did those who took part in two other experiments which tested how optimism affects outcome show any tangible improvement in performance. "What we can conclude is that there are lots of instances in which people think optimism will be helpful, but that belief is often misplaced," said Moore. Optimism isn't merely unhelpful at times—it can be demonstrably counterproductive. Telling someone "you can do it" when they actually can't doesn't change the outcome, _and_ it makes them more likely to exert time and effort on a fruitless task. There might be no clearer example than the fact that optimists spend more time looking for Waldo, but are no more likely to find him.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Part of the problem is that people are prone to confuse correlation for causation, says Moore. Sports, in particular, are a domain where it's easy to look at a success story, and glean that an athlete has benefited from over-confidence, when in fact what has happened is the athlete believes he or she will make a shot or score a goal because the likelihood is that they will, and then does for the exact same reason. "It's realism disguised as optimism," said Moore. The other issue is that people might simply be too optimistic about optimism. Keeping your head up isn't a bad way to go about life, so long as it isn't treated as a prescriptive means to success. Moore's study is hardly the first to find holes in a dogmatic equipment of the outlook. A 2007 study found that optimism, when practiced in extremes, is associated with financial impulsiveness and other unwise behavior. A much older but equally telling study from 1991 found similar hindrances for people trying to lose weight: the more positively women felt about the future, the fewer pounds they managed to shed.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Pessimism, to be clear, doesn't tend to produce better outcomes either. Previous research has shown that defensive pessimism, where people protect themselves from the worst case scenario, has, unsurprisingly, left them better protected when those scenarios unfold. But this latest study did not find that pessimists performed any better. Moore, based on both his research and his real life observations, favors more of a middle ground, where one's expectations are as closely aligned with reality as possible. "Early on in my career, I was quite sure that there were instances where being optimistic helps you perform better," he said. "Now I'm pretty sure that the true value is in realism."

It’s been a benchmark year for gay rights. From the repeal of the military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy in September to President Obama’s pivotal endorsement of same-sex marriage last month, the movement has gained considerable speed. And as policies and polls reveal an opinion shift by Americans in favor of gay marriage, the rainbow flag has become a ubiquitous symbol of the fight for equal rights. But mention this progress to a group of gay and transgender teens and young adults in the Washington area and be met with shrugs, sighs, silence. For them, the progress in the government and mainstream media seems surface-level. Their world — where bullying, discrimination, HIV and homelessness live on — can still feel as dangerous, lonely and misunderstood as it did a decade ago. “It’s like, okay, we can marry, so what’s next?” said K.D. Monroe, 21, who lives and works in the District. “Do we need a gay president to make a point? To get society to let us be who we want to be? Those things don’t make it any easier for me to walk down the street, to be who I am.” Recognizing these concerns, four gay rights advocates developed a mentoring program in hopes that it would foster a sense of belonging. The program, called Leading Youth Forward Everyday, will pair LGBT adults with young people ages 16 to 24 and include cultural enrichment programs, field trips and educational activities. When it starts its three-month pilot program in August, LYFE Mentors will be the first LGBT-specific mentoring program in the region. The program’s founders, who work at other LGBT and HIV/AIDS awareness organizations in the Washington area — including Metro TeenAIDS, Connect to Protect and the DC Center — are familiar with the challenges that gay teens face. They say mentors can potentially offset such risks in the community as homelessness and attempted suicide. Other organizations are also ramping up their support for LGBT youths. Last June, the D.C. Child and Family Services Agency created the Connecting Rainbows Initiative, a program within their LGBT task force that trains social workers on ways to support gay teens in the foster-care system. CASA for Children of D.C., an organization that advocates for children in foster care, has started offering similar training for its mentors. And the DC Center, the region’s umbrella organization for the LGBT community and the official sponsor of LYFE Mentors, has formed a youth support group to make the center responsive to certain needs. “Gay youths are a very vulnerable group,” said David Mariner, executive director of the DC Center. Last week, the center released data from the 2010 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, a biennial survey by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, reporting that LGBT youth in D.C. public schools are at significantly higher risk for bullying, drug use, sexual assault and suicide than their heterosexual peers. “For them, it’s not really about passing a bill. It’s about feeling lonely.” The new focus on young people is timely, said Andrew Barnett, executive director of the Sexual Minority Youth Assistance League. He said that partly because of the gay community’s increased presence in the media, young people are coming out earlier in life. But sometimes, this creates false hope for security and acceptance. “Kids see more gay people on TV and think it’s safer to come out, but it’s not reality,” Barnett said. “A decade ago, the average age for coming out was 23. Today, it’s around 13.” Although most 23-year-olds lead relatively independent lives, 13-year-olds have a lot to lose. Not only are they less equipped than an older person to cope with the emotional stresses of coming out but they also risk ending up on the streets, often not by choice, if their families don’t accept their sexual identity. Brooke Taylor was 14 when she came out to her family after knowing she was gay for years. Looking back, she thinks coming out at an early age was the natural thing to do. “Right around the time everyone else became aware of their feelings, so did I,” she said. “Why should gay kids have to wait until they’re adults to have feelings?” Taylor, now 23 and a recent graduate of Howard University, helped found LYFE Mentors last summer during an internship with the DC Center because she was “flabbergasted” when she saw how little mental health support there was for gay and transgender youths in the region. “It felt obvious to me that a mentoring program could help lower some of these risk factors, and the city simply didn’t have one,” she said. When Sean Robinson heard about LYFE Mentors through the DC Center, he knew he wanted to get involved as a mentor. As a professor at Argosy University, Robinson has spent the past several years researching sexual orientation in young adults and evaluating George Washington University’s LGBT mentoring program. The difference between an adviser, a counselor and a mentor is critical, he said. “Advising is prescriptive. It’s saying, ‘Here’s what you need.’ Counseling is instructive. It’s saying, ‘Here’s how you do this.’ But mentoring is relational, it’s not one-size-fits-all. It’s meeting the youth where they’re at, asking the hard questions and saying, ‘Let’s walk together.’ It’s not easy, that’s for sure,” Robinson said. During focus groups with local LGBT teens and young adults, Robinson said LYFE Mentors’ advisers learned they’ll have to be strategic and meticulous when pairing mentors and mentees together. “Just because you pair a young lesbian with an older lesbian doesn’t mean a relationship is going to happen,” he said. “Like any relationship, there has to be chemistry, goals and a mutual understanding about why you’re there in order to be successful.” No one at the helm of LYFE Mentors pretends that mentoring will end the risk of homelessness or attempted suicide. But by offering an adult to talk to, the group hopes to make a dent. “Maybe we’re going to the root of the problem,” Mariner said. “To give an alienated, lonely kid someone to turn to who understands what they’re going through — maybe that’s the next step.”

Please stop saying my adopted daughter is ‘lucky’

A few weeks ago, my husband and I sent out an announcement about the adoption of our daughter, Swarna. We attached a photo of her wearing a bright red dress covered in bunny rabbits, a gift from one of her grandmothers. In the photo, I am holding her above my head, and her lips are curved into a gleeful, toothless grin. The responses to the announcement showered us with love. “Such a happy baby!” They said. “What a wonderful new family,” they said. “Your daughter,” they said, “is lucky.” There are many words I would use to describe our daughter. Tough. Resilient. Determined. Silly. Cuddly. Stubborn. Lucky though? Probably not. When my husband and I decided to adopt, I did my research. It was important to me to participate in a process that respected maternal rights. In Western nations, foster care systems often remove children from their families in the name of child protection. While well-intentioned, these separations are frequently rooted in racism, patriarchy and xenophobia. We adopted from India partly because my husband and I are both Indian — he was born and raised there, and I am from diaspora — but mostly because its public adoption system has strict rules that protect the wishes of the birth family. In India, birth families voluntarily surrender children. After they give the child to a government-certified home, they have 60 days to rethink their decision and are allowed reclaim the child, no questions asked. I felt that we were working through a procedure that, although imperfect, was doing its best to do right by birth families and children. It wasn’t until I brought my daughter home that I began to realize that even in a system that theoretically takes into account the rights of birthparents, the decision to give up a child is, more often than not, the culmination of an unsuccessful fight against intersecting forces of oppression.  I don’t know the story of my daughter’s birth family. On good days, I imagine her mother making a choice that she could live with. But on most days, I admit that it is unlikely that Swarna’s birth family made an empowered choice to give her up. It’s a strange thing, raising a child who wasn’t born to you. During this first month with Swarna, I think of her birth mother every day. Like many adopted children, Swarna has been racing through developmental milestones she should have hit months ago. Every time she does something new — giggles, recognizes herself in the mirror, sits up straight, pulls herself to a stand, takes tentative steps — I think of her birth mother. I think of her when our pediatrician tells us Swarna has gained weight, or when friends remark on how much she smiles. I think of her when we struggle to give Swarna medication, or when she wakes up terrified and clings to me, scratching my arm nervously with her tiny, sharp nails. Sometimes, I even have conversations with Swarna’s birth mother in my head. I tell her, “Our daughter is so tough, and so smart. I wish you were here to see her.” Or, I say, “Swarna has been through so much. You have too. I’m holding her because I love her. If I could, I’d hold you too.” Most often, I say, “I am doing the best I can. For you, and for our daughter.” Always, I think of her as our shared daughter — mine, my husband’s, and her birth mother’s. Always, I wonder how I would feel if our positions were reversed. How I could ever give up this delicious, complicated child who fills my days with a kind of joy and terror and exhaustion I have never known before. How many safety nets I would have to have fallen through to be at the point where I was unable to care for my child. Swarna is not lucky. I am. I’m the one the Indian government screened and deemed fit to be a parent. I’m the one who has a supportive husband, two Ivy League degrees and a flat in Delhi. I’m the one with a salary in American dollars that pays for the health care and the bilingual nanny and the stay-at-home-mom time that has gotten Swarna through the physical and emotional trauma of her placement in our home. My husband and I love Swarna. I am sure she knows it. In less than a month, she’s gone from a timid, wary, nervous baby to a bubbly, babbly, active little girl. Her anxiety still ebbs and flows, but at this point, it mostly ebbs. I believe she feels safe, comfortable and happy. I believe that if her birth mother saw her, she would be relieved. But I do not believe that I am doing a better job raising Swarna than her birth mother could have done. I do not believe that I deserve to be a mother any more than her birth mother does. And I do not, at all, believe that my daughter is lucky. I believe my daughter and her birth mother experienced trauma that I will never have to know because of my privilege. Out of the three of us — me, Swarna and Swarna’s birth mother — I’m the one who made a choice. I’m the one who got what I wanted. This knowledge fills me with questions. What does it mean to raise the child of a woman whom I have never met but who, most likely, faces an intersection of oppressive forces that I will never face? How do I raise a child in solidarity with this woman? What can I do to ensure that in the future, women like her are not faced with a matrix of impossible choices that results in their inability to keep hold of their precious, beautiful children? One day, I will discuss these questions with my daughter. Maybe she won’t have answers. But I hope that I will love her and protect her enough that she will feel safe enough to tell me what she thinks. I hope that she will have better ideas than I have.

Immigrant integration is not (just) about finding the right kind of people

_Kim Yi Dionne: This guest post is the third in our series on immigrant integration in Europe. Find earlier postshere._    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico **** What is the best way to integrate immigrants? One common answer is that countries should only admit the right kind of immigrants, those who will be most likely to adapt to the host society’s norms. Scientific research in this paradigm finds that immigrants with higher socio-economic status and/or more cultural similarities with the host country will be more likely to integrate successfully. For example, immigrants with higher levels of educational attainment and higher occupational status are more likely to get good jobs and culturally assimilate over time. Immigrants who arrive speaking the host country language and sharing religious and cultural practices with the host society will also be more likely to integrate over time.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Research on which immigrants are more likely to integrate successfully has generated important insights. Yet, I argue that it may lead to a misguided attempt to label some immigrants as ‘good’ and others as ‘bad’ for integration. My recent research explores the ways in which contextual and situational factors shape integration. In other words, immigrant integration is not always about the individual. This basic insight is not new. There is a long academic tradition of studying the national-level policies that are most likely to promote successful integration. However, my recent work suggests that integration is often better understood by analyzing the local community in which an individual lives or the various situations an individual may experience during daily life.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico One example of how studying context provides a different perspective on immigrant integration is the study of political attitudes. My recently published research suggests that for certain key political attitudes (most notably trust in government and satisfaction with the government) immigrants take their cues from native neighbors, irrespective of their socio-economic status or cultural assimilation. I find that the strongest predictor of how immigrants in 22 European countries feel about their government is not how well they are doing economically or how close they are to the host society culture, but instead how natives living in the same sub-national region feel about the government. This suggests that immigrants may become well-integrated into the local civic and attitudinal norms just through living in the community.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico A key implication of my finding is that since immigrants’ political attitudes are not necessarily related to their economic attainment or cultural assimilation, we need to think more carefully about the multiple dimensions of integration. This builds on findings from my 2012 book which argued that economic, political and social aspects of immigrant integration are often at odds for any given immigrant individual or immigrant group. In short, searching for the ‘right’ kind of immigrant to integrate ignores the complexities of immigrant integration.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Another branch of research focuses on what kinds of natives are most likely to accept immigrants as part of the host society. The assumption here is that if host societies can promote the individual-level traits that make natives more welcoming, there will be a more positive environment for immigrants to integrate. This work identifies a wide range of factors, including higher levels of educational attainment, more positive interpersonal contact with immigrants, an ideological preference for social equality, and a willingness to accept diversity, which make some natives more likely to have positive feelings about immigrants. However, a recent wave of research places this individual-level variation in perspective by highlighting the more general trend of agreement among natives about which types of immigrants they are more willing to accept.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Moreover, in a recent working paper, I find that natives’ willingness to accept immigrants depends on the immigrants’ occupation. Previous research viewed immigrants’ occupation as an indicator of socio-economic status, and argued that natives’ preference for highly-skilled immigrants was an example of choosing the ‘right kind’ of immigrants. In contrast, my working paper explores the symbolic aspects of occupation, and argues that natives are less likely to accept immigrants who are employed in occupations that are culturally important for national identity (e.g. chefs and winemakers in France, or brewers and symphony employees in Germany). These results are consistent for both high and low-skilled immigrants and for various subsets of natives. This is further evidence that immigrant integration is not just about whether immigrants have better socio-economic status or more cultural assimilation, or whether natives are more or less open to the idea of immigration. Instead, integration will depend on the particular cultural context in which a given set of immigrants and natives interact.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico The intense salience of immigrant integration suggests continued debates about what kind of immigrant and what kind of native will best facilitate immigrant integration.  However, my ongoing work explores the ways in which all immigrants and all natives are capable of both successful and failed integration.  This draws our attention to the ways in which integration varies across indicators (e.g. some immigrants will be better integrated economically than culturally) and across situations.  For example, in a current study I am exploring how an immigrant’s likelihood of being accepted by natives depends on various mundane situations that occur in daily life.  There is no perfect state of integration nirvana that will insulate an immigrant from all difficulties. Instead, immigrants are likely to experience a range of integration outcomes as they move through their lives, and understanding that complexity is essential for understanding the integration process. **** _Rahsaan Maxwell is associate professor of political science at UNC-Chapel Hill. His book, “Ethnic Minority Migrants in Britain and France: Integration Trade-Offs,” was published by Cambridge University Press in 2012._    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico

Ask Amy: Foster parents struggle with impending loss

DEAR AMY: My husband and I have been foster parents to a sibling group of three young children for the past year and a half. We recently found out that despite our hopes of adoption, the children will be leaving us soon, which is absolutely heartbreaking. We live in a small town where everyone pretty much knows one another’s business, and I am dreading the inevitable questions that we will be asked about the kids’ departure everywhere we go. We are not “career” foster parents and only became licensed to take in these children, so I’ve never had to deal with this sort of thing before. Any suggestions on how to deal with the nosy but well-meaning masses? I don’t want to come off as rude but really have no desire to give anyone the play by play. -- Sad Foster DEAR SAD: You are to be commended for your effort to make life better for these three children. As you know, reunification with birth families is a priority for children in foster care, and well over half of foster kids are in fact returned to their birth families. One aspect of the fostering experience is the sheer bravery it takes to face the challenge of parting with children you love. It would help if you keep in mind that these children were also present in others’ lives — whether neighbors, shopkeepers or the mail carrier. A simple non-nosy question: “Hey, where are the kids today?” could plunge you into a complicated grief state. You don’t mention the specifics, but you should prepare a simple, truthful answer, such as: “The court made a decision, and they have been placed back with their birth mother.” It’s usually the second, third and fourth question after a loss that provide the biggest challenge. These come from people who have follow-up questions or unsolicited advice (or who want to share the story about their sister-in-law’s cousin who had “the exact same thing happen!”). Prepare yourself with this: “We’re struggling right now, and I’m not ready to talk about it.” The agency that chose you to be foster parents can point you toward support. There are also many online discussion boards devoted to foster parenting, and you would benefit from connecting with other parents in this way. DEAR AMY: My mother never went to college, because she had my brother and me when she was quite young. When we were around age 12, she went back to school to become a nurse. I am happy for her because my father hasn’t always paid child support, and she’s trying to support us on her own. Her example makes me want to go to college right after high school. This year I am taking pre-AP English and a challenging foreign language. I want to join clubs too, but with the hard classes I have, my mom and I are worried that I may not be able to keep up. I am worried about never being good enough to get where I want to be in life. Do you have any advice for me? -- As Much as I Wish DEAR AS MUCH: Colleges definitely look at the quality and difficulty of classes you choose to take, so it’s a good idea to challenge yourself academically. This might seem counterintuitive, but joining clubs, playing sports, etc., can also enhance your academic performance because being busy and active is good for you in every way. It’s all about balance. Keep striving. Be kind to others and gentle to yourself. Ask for help when you need it, and step back on activities if you are overwhelmed. Honor your mother’s wonderful example by doing your best. I have a strong feeling you’re going to be just fine. DEAR AMY: Responding to the thoughtful question from “Anxious Aunt,” whose young nephew liked some “feminine” toys, such as My Little Pony, there are a lot of male fans of My Little Pony. They’re called Bronies, and they just had a convention! -- Fan DEAR FAN: I just read a story about the Brony convention, accompanied by a photograph of a man carrying a sign saying, “I like ponies. Deal with it.” Amen. Amy’s column appears seven days a week at www.washingtonpost.com/advice. Write to  Amy Dickinson  at askamy@tribune.com or Ask Amy, Chicago Tribune, TT500, 435 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, Ill. 60611.

Russian official: U.S. adoption ban will stand

MOSCOW — Russia’s children’s ombudsman vigorously endorsed the ban on U.S. adoptions Thursday, saying there was no chance it would be lifted no matter how large the protest. However, the 50 or so American families who have received court decisions will be able to take their children home, he said. In a combative news conference, Pavel Astakhov, the ombudsman, said he has been opposed to U.S. adoptions ever since 2010, when a Tennessee woman put her 7-year-old alone on a plane bound for Moscow accompanied only by a note saying she was returning him because he was violent and unstable. “We must stop selling our children,” he said. But he repeatedly said the families with court decrees can take their children, even though regional officials have apparently been refusing to finish the adoptions. “We are talking about 52 families,” he said, “maybe more, maybe less.” He conceded that some of those families have been denied the final paperwork and promised to intervene personally in those cases. “Judges are afraid, employees of migration offices are afraid,” he said. “Everyone’s afraid. That’s the reality, unfortunately.” The ban, enacted by Russia’s legislature in December and signed by President Vladimir Putin, has devastated American families who wanted to adopt. It also has unleashed considerable furor among Russians, with tens of thousands marching in protest of the ban Sunday. Many here say that orphaned children will never get the love, education and health care in Russia that they would get in the United States, and they have criticized their leaders for playing politics with children’s lives. The law, passed 420 to 7 in the lower house and unanimously in the upper house, was cast as retaliation for the U.S. Magnitsky Act, which imposed visa and financial sanctions on corrupt Russian officials.

More Gospel inclusiveness, please

A journalist recently asked what I thought about possible changes in the Catholic Church with our new pope. He specifically wanted to know if I expected that relationships with women would improve. I responded that I live in hope, and the journalist laughingly remarked that he had received exactly that response from every woman he had asked. Yes, many of us are hopeful, based mostly on the initial actions and words of Pope Francis. We are heartened that he has reached out in humility to groups such as the detainees at a Roman youth detention center, where he washed the feet of young men and women on Holy Thursday. Including the young women was unprecedented. My deepest hope is that he will lead our church in embracing all people who feel they have been marginalized or cast out because of stridency and cruelty they have encountered in our church. Too often we have been a hurtful structure rather than a caring community. Members of LGBT communities have been particularly harmed, and that is wrong. The Gospels are filled with examples of Jesus teaching us to reach out to and welcome those who have been marginalized by others. Jesus reached out to the lepers, healed the Roman occupier’s son, asked the Samaritan woman for help, and prevented the woman taken in adultery from being stoned by judgmental men. Pope Francis seems to understand this better than many, and we now have examples of people like Cardinal Dolan making some progress in following Christ’s example. During Easter weekend, the cardinal spoke on TV talk shows, where he admitted that “we’ve got to do better to see that our defense of marriage is not reduced to an attack on gay people.” He also stated he would say to members of the community, “…God loves you. And you are made in God’s image and likeness.” Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministry, which seeks to build bridges between the Church and LGBT communities, commented, “This is the first time that the cardinal has made such a positive statement about God’s love for lesbian and gay people. Such a statement is a refreshing change from the usual harsh rhetoric that the church hierarchy uses when discussing LGBT issues. It is a significant sign of welcome and outreach. Cardinal Dolan’s statement is nothing short of an Easter miracle.” Maybe the bigger Easter miracle came during Easter Mass at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, when Cardinal Dolan was quoted as hinting that even more dramatic changes were coming. He said, “The Church, with a capital ‘C’, is undergoing renewal, repair, resurrection. I kind of think we’re seeing it today in a particularly fresh and new way with our beloved Holy Father.” Perhaps the biggest change that our Pope Francis brings is that he seems to be loosening the bondage of fear that has held our leadership silent - and stifled the Gospel of inclusion. Maybe by washing young women’s feet, by speaking of the needs of people who live in poverty and by leaving behind a lot of the traditional pomp of his office, Pope Francis is freeing bishops from their fear of being censured by a harsh Vatican. As a Catholic sister I know that it is not pleasant to face such censure. But I also know that Jesus was not stopped by his fear of what authority would do. So my prayer is that Pope Francis will continue to model an inclusive church that welcomes all in the name of Jesus. My prayer includes Cardinal Dolan and all of the other leaders of our church. I urge them to follow Jesus’s words to the disciples after his resurrection: Fear not! This is the liberating power of welcoming everyone into the community. This is the life-giving realm of living the Gospel now. _Sister Simone Campbell is the Executive Director of NETWORK, A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby. _ ****

Robert Samuelson: The end of entitlement

We are passing through something more than a period of disappointing economic growth and increasing political polarization. What’s happening is more powerful: the collapse of “entitlement.” By this, I do not mean primarily cuts in specific government benefits, most prominently Social Security, but the demise of a broader mind-set — attitudes and beliefs — that, in one form or another, has gripped Americans since the 1960s. The breakdown of these ideas has rattled us psychologically as well as politically and economically. In my 1995 book, “The Good Life and Its Discontents,” I defined entitlement as our expectations “about the kind of nation we were creating and what that meant for all of us individually”: _We had a grand vision. We didn’t merely expect things to get better. We expected all social problems to be solved. We expected business cycles, economic insecurity, poverty, and racism to end. We expected almost limitless personal freedom and self-fulfillment. For those who couldn’t live life to its fullest (as a result of old age, disability, or bad luck), we expected a generous social safety net to guarantee decent lives. We blurred the distinction between progress and perfection._ Bill Clinton has a pithier formulation: “If you work hard and play by the rules, you’ll have the freedom and opportunity to pursue your own dreams.” That’s entitlement. “Responsible” Americans should be able to attain realistic ambitions. No more. Millions of Americans who have “played by the rules” are in distress or fear that they might be. In a new Allstate-National Journal survey, 65 percent of respondents said today’s middle class has less “job and financial security” than their parents’ generation; 52 percent asserted there is less “opportunity to get ahead.” The middle class is “more anxious than aspirational,” concluded the poll’s sponsors. Similarly, the Employee Benefit Research Institute found that only 51 percent of workers are confident they’ll have enough money to retire comfortably, down from 70 percent in 2007. Popular national goals remain elusive. Poverty is stubborn. Many schools seem inadequate. The “safety net,” private and public, is besieged. Our expansive notion of entitlement rested on optimistic and, ultimately, unrealistic assumptions: First, that economists knew enough to moderate the business cycle, guaranteeing jobs for most people who wanted them. This seemed true for many years; from 1980 to 2007, the economy created 47 million non-farm jobs. The Great Recession revealed the limits of economic management. The faith in a crude stability vanished. Second, that large corporations (think: General Motors, AT&T) were so dominant that they could provide secure jobs and generous benefits — health insurance, pensions — for much of the labor force. Deregulation, foreign competition and new technologies changed all this. Companies became more cost-conscious, cutting jobs and squeezing fringe benefits. The private “safety net” has shrunk. Third, that improvements in economic efficiency (a.k.a. “productivity”) would lift living standards and finance bigger government without steeper taxes. Government could pay for new programs by taking a fixed share of rising incomes. In reality, greater income inequality has dampened middle-class living standards, while existing programs — soaring health costs and the effects of an aging population — have claimed an ever-larger share of taxes. Fourth, that lifestyle choices — to marry, have children or divorce — would expand individual freedom without inflicting adverse social consequences. Wrong. Family breakdown has deepened poverty and worsened children’s prospects. About 30 percent of children live with either one parent or no parent; on average, their life chances are poorer than those in two-parent households. Weighed down by these contradictions, entitlement has been slowly crumbling for decades. The Great Recession merely applied the decisive blow. We’re not entitled to many things: not to a dynamic economy; not to secure jobs; not to homeownership; not to ever-more protective government; not to fixed tax burdens; not to a college education. Sooner or later, the programs called “entitlements,” including Social Security, will be trimmed because they’re expensive and some recipients are less deserving than others. The collision between present realities and past expectations helps explain the public’s extraordinary moodiness. The pandering to the middle class by both parties (and much of the media) represents one crude attempt to muffle the disappointment, a false reassurance that the pleasing past can be reclaimed. It can’t. This does not mean the economy can’t improve. Derek Thompson, writing in the Atlantic, suggests that when “millennials” end their delays in marrying, having children and buying homes, they will administer a welcome stimulus to growth. The trouble is that today’s grievances transcend the economy. In the post-entitlement era, people’s expectations may be more grounded. But political conflicts — who gets, who gives — and social resentments will be, as they already are, sharper. Entitlement implied an almost-limitless future. Facing limits is a contentious exercise in making choices. _Read more fromRobert Samuelson’s archive._ **Read more on PostOpinions:** Robert J. Samuelson: The end of macro magic Robert J. Samuelson: An economy that’s tearing our society apart

The right therapy for LGBT youth

_Stewart Adelson, an assistant clinical professor at Columbia University medical school, was principal author of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry’s practice guidelines on LGBT youth. Kyle Knight is a researcher in the LGBT rights program at Human Rights Watch._ When the White House announced  its support for ending the use of “conversion therapies” for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people under 18, it sent a supportive message to young people who identify as LGBT or are questioning their gender or sexuality. Therapies that aim to “cure” or “convert” gay or transgender people have failed to produce evidence that they work or are safe; indeed, there is wide consensus among professionals that these therapies are ineffective and harmful. The anti-LGBT animus inspiring these practices creates stigma. As they take steps to end such practices, however, legislators and practitioners must be careful not to encroach on effective therapy options for young people who are exploring the complex matters of gender and sexuality. Children have the right to discover and be accepted for who they are. Growing up healthy sometimes involves changing one’s mind, and children may need to talk honestly about this possibility with a therapist. Bans could have the unintended consequence of deterring therapists from engaging with children who have questions or even of ensnaring good therapists when they do. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, suicide is the third-leading cause of death in the United States among those age 10 to 14, and the second-leading from age 15 to 24. Gay, lesbian and bisexual youth are two to five times as likely as their straight peers to attempt suicide, and young transgender people are also at heightened risk. Prejudice is a leading factor. The American Psychiatric Association warns that conversion therapies can lead to depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior — and notes that “therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient.” But supportive psychotherapy can be a crucial resource. The American Medical Association attributes emotional disturbances felt by LGBT people to a “sense of alienation in an unaccepting environment” and calls for affirmative psychotherapy to help people cope and develop. President Obama’s embrace of this issue backs up these professional perspectives with governmental authority, and he has left it up to states to take action while highlighting anti-conversion therapy legislation such as bans in California and New Jersey. However, legislative bans may not be the best solution to this problem. Psychotherapy is inherently private and complex, and for some individuals, sexual orientation and gender identity can and do evolve in the course of legitimate treatment. The American Academy of Pediatrics, while condemning therapy directed at changing sexual orientation, makes the important point that “confusion about sexual orientation is not unusual during adolescence” and calls for counseling to be available to young people who experience uncertainty. In recent years increasing numbers of children and adolescents report viewing themselves as “genderqueer” — that is, not fitting into binary male-female categories. Good treatment in such cases frequently involves embracing flexibility to help patients discover what feels most authentic to them. Rather than legislative bans, conversion therapies should be addressed by state licensing boards and similar regulatory bodies. For mental health practitioners — psychiatrists, psychologists, school counselors and social workers alike — licensure guidelines are designed and enforced by these regulatory bodies, using professional guidelines that already condemn such therapies. Consumer protection guidelines also rule out acts of deception. Put plainly, therapists can’t claim conversion methods work; if they do, they could be fined or lose their license. Mental-health practitioners have an important role to play in distinguishing between good and bad practice, and children have the right to speak up both in seeking health care and in policymaking processes that affect them. Childhood and adolescence are crucial times for development, including of sexual orientation and gender identity. Adolescence can also be a particularly turbulent period for mental health as the body develops and social environments and expectations shift rapidly. During this vital stage, youth need information, support and safe spaces to ask questions. Mental health professionals need the latitude to help them. The White House’s strides on LGBT rights are notable, and discussion of strategies for ending conversion therapies is welcome. Trauma-inducing practices should not be allowed to masquerade as therapy, but we shouldn’t think of blanket bans as elixirs. To strike the right balance, it is vital to include practitioners as well as youth in the dialogue — so that they have a say in policies that will impact their rights to information, health and integrity. **Read more about this topic:** Dana Milbank: The new argument against gay equality Doug Mainwaring: Why I oppose gay marriage Cardinal Donald Wuerl and John Garvey: Disagreement is not discrimination

For National Adoption Month, we read Forever Mom: What To Expect When You’re Adopting

A confession: I don’t read a lot of parenting books. When I have a question or need advice about raising my 2 ½ year old son, I usually just ask my twin sister. I can’t get into a book about potty-training. Although my sister and I traverse adulthood and motherhood mostly in sync, the way twins often do, she gave birth to her four boys; I adopted my son from Morocco when he was four months old. We were adopted ourselves as infants, and Jenny writes an adoption blog about navigating the new relationship with our birth family, but my sister has never adopted a baby just as I have never given birth. There are differences, for us and for our children.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico In my wide circle of friends, a diverse group that includes other single mothers, same-sex parents and mothers and fathers on four continents, I don’t have close friends who have gone on a similar journey, adopting a baby from an orphanage in a different country. For this reason, I have tried hard to keep in touch with the other parents I met in Morocco when we adopted our children in 2012. In the past several years, I’ve made a point to travel to see these other families–in Ohio, Arizona and North Carolina. I keep in touch on Facebook with families in Switzerland and Mauritius who adopted from Morocco, and I do this as much for me as I do for my son. These are my peers, my fellow travelers, my expert sources on raising a Moroccan child with a similar start in life. Mary Ostyn has had a far different journey. She and her husband, high school sweethearts, adopted the six youngest of their 10 children. Four of her children are from Ethiopia and two are from South Korea. Her own stories in her book “Forever Mom: What To Expect When You’re Adopting,” are supplemented with blog posts from other adoptive mothers, providing a richer account of adoption than if she were singularly sharing her experience. She also includes reflections from her children, the voices of the adopted children.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico There is much focus in the adoption-sphere about language. Forever families. First mothers. Forever moms—hence the title of Osytn’s book. Because of her blog and her own research, my sister is far more versed than I am on the semantics of adoption, the debates within the debates. I view adoption as an event that happened. My son was adopted. He is not adopted. I was adopted. I am not adopted. Adoption is not something that defines me, though I understand that loss is also a part of adoption and can have lasting effects on a child. Because of my own experience or maybe in spite of it, I have avoided reading too much about parenting specific to adoption, though I do subscribe to the popular Adoptive Families magazine, and I completed the online courses on adoption and parenting required for my home study and mandated by my placement agency. I found these courses interesting and helpful for understanding potential (not foregone) issues specific to children who were adopted, issues such as attachment difficulties and delays in sensory-motor development.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Many parents seeking to adopt, or who have already adopted find a community online, through list-serves and social media groups like this one on Facebook for parents and adoptees dealing with race in adoption. Groups like these can be a valuable resource. When I first dealt with my son’s sensory processing issues, I checked out several books from the library and spent hours browsing Web sites and forums for parents. My most meaningful connection came off-line, though, when I visited a friend from high school and discovered that her daughter had similar issues.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Adoption is not a secret in our house. It is part of our story, mine and my son’s. But it is only a part. I remember cringing the first time a well-meaning family member introduced him as “the little boy Jackie adopted from Morocco.” “He’s my son,” I remember whispering through gritted teeth. “Just introduce him as my son.” My son, who is Arab, looks bi-racial, like he could be mine biologically, depending on the other part of the equation. We do not have the same visible and immediate transracial differences that face many white families who adopt children of different ethnicities. At least not yet. Because my son was adopted as an infant from a nurturing orphanage, his “start” was not as traumatic as some children who were adopted, including Ostyn’s son, Benjamin. Ben, who was born missing a foot, spent the first half of his life in a hospital and then was in foster care before being adopted at 20 months old. Joshua, their first child adopted from South Korea, came home at 4 months, the same age as my son. Like Ostyn, I didn’t notice any problems bonding with my son. Her words could have been my own. “By the time Joshua had been home three days, my heart knew no distinction between birth and adoption,” she writes. “I was head over heels in love. He was mine.” One of the most interesting parts of the book is Ostyn’s revelation about how the different starts of her boys impacted their first months at home with their new family. When she pulled him close for a snuggle, little Ben “cried and thrashed as though my hugs were torture,” Ostyn writes. “He wasn’t content in my arms, but he wasn’t happy away from me either.” When she ultimately realized that his behavior was a sign of attachment difficulties, Ostyn said she was both scared and relieved. Many parents who have adopted, particularly toddlers and older children, will be able to relate. Ostyn spends a chapter discussing how to help babies and toddlers settle into their new homes, a different process than helping older children acclimate. For example, she repeats advice that I have heard before from social workers. Parents should be the main food providers in the baby’s life for at least the first six to 12 months. “Sometimes siblings or grandparents want to offer goodies, but for the sake of bonding it is really best if mom and dad are the primary source of bottles and treats,” she writes. She also notes that playtime is especially important with young children who were adopted to make up for missed time together. Language is often an issue for children who are adopted from other countries, particularly if they are already speaking when they arrive in the United States. I didn’t worry about that too much with my son. He was young, and I spoke some Arabic, one of the languages he heard in Morocco as an infant. In both Ethiopia and Korea, Ostyn noticed that babies were kept close to their mothers, shaping her desire to co-sleep. This is true as well in Morocco and in most Eastern cultures. Mei-Ling Hopgood’s book, How Eskimos Keep Their Babies Warm: And Other Adventures in Parenting (from Argentina to Tanzania and everywhere in between) is one of my favorite reads on this subject.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico I have talked to the other parents who adopted from Morocco about how they were sleep-training their little ones, and we varied, from the couple who had their daughter sleep with them to another family whose son slept in a crib from the start. I found Ostyn’s advice on sleeping arrangements to be useful, particularly as I prepare to adopt another baby from Morocco. I am not going to be in as much as a hurry this time for the new baby to sleep in his crib in his own room. I’ve already purchased a bassinet that I will keep in my room because I don’t want the new baby to be in a room by himself. Ostyn argues that independent sleeping is “exactly the opposite” of what a newly arrived child needs to become well attached.” Remember, she writes, “you are trying to make up for lost time together.” Ostyn does well in voicing her concerns and some of the problems she had with bonding with her children, particularly two older sisters from Ethiopia. “Nothing was easy,” she writes, noting that her house turned into a warzone with the arrival of Lidya and Zeytuna, who were 11 and 9. Although she never loses hope, Ostyn avoids embracing the version of adoption my neighbor calls “unicorn pooping a rainbow.” My neighbor is the mother to a little boy adopted from Ethiopia when he was 3. (He is now in kindergarten.) I asked her recently what she thought about adoption books. “There are these warring narratives,” she told me. “But it’s not just intellectual. It’s personal because these are kids and strong belief systems and racism and poverty and white privilege and all of that. So not just words but lives and consequences. And people take it very seriously. There are books, lots of books. And conferences, and T-shirts and hey, today is Orphan Sunday!” She paused. “Today actually is Orphan Sunday.” Forever Mom will appeal to a specific community. The book is published by the Christian imprint of HarperCollins, and its message is very much grounded in Ostyn’s faith. If you are looking for a secular read, with only stories and advice, Forever Mom is not it. But it is a compelling story, most useful for those navigating the process of adoption without a clue about where to start or what to expect. It is told from the experienced perspective of a woman whose family has changed the lives of six children, and Ostyn’s voice is honest, not rehearsed or sugar-coated. Which is a relief. Because there ought to be ban on unicorns pooping rainbows. _Jackie Spinner was a staff writer for The Washington Post for 14 years. She is now an assistant professor of journalism at Columbia College Chicago._    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico **Like On Parenting on Facebook** **for more advice, essays and news.**    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico _You may also like:_    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Preparing my toddler son for his soon-to-be adopted sibling    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Of 2-year-olds and sleeping    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico   Jackie Spinner was a staff writer for The Washington Post for 14 years. She is now an assistant professor of journalism at Columbia

Five myths about missing children

_David Finkelhor is the director of the Crimes Against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire and a researcher for the National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children._ The news, at the same time shocking and hopeful, about the discovery of three young women who went missing in Cleveland about a decade ago has riveted the country. The notion of a stranger grabbing a child off the street occupies a prominent place in popular fears. But the missing-children cases that rise to the level of news tend to distort perceptions of how often children go missing and why. It’s important to sort out the myth and reality about missing kids. **1. Most missing children have been abducted by strangers.** Stranger abductions, such as the case of the three young women in Cleveland, are fearsome because they appear random and so often involve rape or homicide. But children taken by strangers or slight acquaintances represent only one- hundredth of 1 percent of all missing children. The last comprehensive study estimated that the number was 115 in a year. Far more common are children who have run away, have gotten lost or injured, have been taken by a family member (usually in a custody dispute) or simply aren’t where they’re expected to be because of a miscommunication. The only scenario more unusual than stereotypical kidnapping is when families falsely report a child as missing to disguise murderous deeds. While abduction and homicide are truly horrible, the costs of more common missing-children cases shouldn’t be underestimated. Those cases, numbering in the hundreds of thousands, occupy vast amounts of police time and leave lasting scars on their victims as well. **2. More and more children are going missing.** The Cleveland case has prompted a spate of missing-children articles and news reports: “Missing Children in America: Unsolved Cases,” “Search for missing children never ends in Las Vegas,” “LA Missing Children’s Families May Feel Renewed Hope.” It may seem like we’re in the midst of an epidemic. In reality, though, all signs indicate that the problem has been improving. Many state missing-children agencies show declining numbers of cases. That trend is supported by FBI statistics showing fewer missing persons of all ages — down 31 percent between 1997 and 2011. The numbers of homicides, sexual assaults and almost all other crimes against children have been dropping, too. Why fewer missing kids? Cellphones are almost certainly part of the explanation. When a friend of my son’s skiied off a trail and into the Maine wilderness near nightfall last winter, a cellphone call got the ski patrol to the right spot and short-circuited what could have been a lengthy search and a possible fatality. Cellphones allow children to summon help and get out of threatening situations. They enable parents to figure out where their kids are when they don’t come home. They afford teens a somewhat longer leash than in the past and thus help counteract one important motive — a quest for autonomy — for children who disappear on their own. Other factors are probably involved in the decline, too. Over the past three decades, we have become more aggressive about finding, prosecuting, incarcerating, supervising, treating and deterring sex offenders. And we have implemented prevention programs and response systems, such as Amber Alert, that both discourage crime and resolve disappearances quickly. **3. The Internet has made kidnapping easier.** Many parents worry about their kids meeting unsavory characters online. But in light of the falling rates of crimes against children, the idea that the Internet amplifies danger is suspect. In fact, it may have contributed to the decline in missing children. For one thing, the Web has changed the way young people take risks: They do it more often at home. Instead of going to the unchaperoned open house or the keg party at the quarry, young people these days socialize and experiment online. Although they can meet people with bad intentions, the physical distance means that more time and thinking elapse between an encounter and a crime. Moreover, electronic tracks mean that schemes get discovered and foiled. After a mother in one of my studies found e-mails between her 13-year-old daughter and an out-of-state adult, planning a getaway, the man found himself having a tryst with police. **4. Prevention lies in teaching children to avoid strangers.** Many schools and parents use the mantra “Never talk to strangers.” It’s doubtful that this really helps. Everyone is a stranger at first; it’s all about the context of the meeting, and that’s hard to convey. But we do know that children are vastly more likely to come to harm and even be abducted by people they know than by people they don’t. We’d do much better to teach them the signs of people (strangers or not) who are behaving badly: touching them inappropriately, being overly personal, trying to get them alone, acting drunk, provoking others or recklessly wielding weapons. We need to help children practice refusal skills, disengagement skills and how to summon help. We need some new prevention mantras. **5. The main goal should be to reunite children with their families.** The professionals who deal with missing-children cases are primarily police officers who are trained to locate young people and bring them back. Sadly, the majority of missing children are suffering from severe and protracted conflict in their families. They run away or are pushed out because they are at odds with their parents and siblings or because they are victims of abuse and neglect. They are taken or held by parents battling fruitlessly over custody rights. Bringing these children home generally does nothing about the conflict and abuse that eat away at their mental health and well-being. So our response to missing children has to be about much more than bringing them home. It has to include resources — such as family therapy, mediation and child protection — that help to resolve conflicts. Better yet, it should include parenting education and other support programs that help build strong families and prevent problems in the first place. **outlook@washpost.com**

A new Cold War?

For Americans who understand the importance of a cooperative U.S.-Russia relationship, 2012 was a disturbing year. The attempted “reset” in relations — launched by the Obama administration in 2009 — proved a failure, as Washington continued to develop unneeded missile defense installations near Russia’s border, Russia passed legislation imperiling the status of U.S.-funded nongovernmental organizations working in the country and the bloody civil wars in Libya and Syria created new misunderstandings and diplomatic vitriol between Moscow and Washington. Until now, very few U.S. observers have had the foresight to warn of what we may now be witnessing — the onset of a new Cold War. My husband, Stephen F. Cohen, is one of the few: In articles in the Nation since the 1990s — see more recently his March 2012 article, “America’s Failed Bipartisan Russia Policy,” and his 2010 paperback “Soviet Fates and Lost Alternatives” — he has repeatedly warned that unless U.S. policy toward post-Soviet Russia changed, we risked plunging into a new Cold War. That possibility emerged clearly last month when, in the space of a few weeks, Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin both signed punitive bills into law: the United States’ Magnitsky Act and Russia’s adoption ban, or “Dima’s Law.” Both leaders signed with reluctance, but neither president proved willing to defy nearly unanimous legislatures bent on passing unwise legislation. As Russia experts Vladimir Sobell, Edward Lozansky and Cohen warned at TheNation.com, “The ‘Magnitsky Act’ violates the rule of law, contradicts American values and undermines US national security.” Framed by its supporters as a human rights bill that would punish officials implicated in the prison death of a Russian attorney, the law is actually more sweeping, a requirement that the executive branch punish individual Russians based on unproven allegations, without any due process. In response, Russian legislators passed, and Putin signed, a bill banning all adoptions of Russian children by U.S. families. It’s an act of cruelty that will hurt the most innocent of victims: children in need of a home who are languishing in poorly funded institutions. Hopefully, its consequences will be mitigated by increased adoptions from other countries and by Russian families themselves. But given that thousands of Russian children have become available for international adoption only after repeated rejections by potential Russian parents, the new policy will mean more children will remain orphans until they reach 18. This even includes some kids whose legal adoptions by U.S. parents were already well underway but now will be canceled unless Putin moves to delay the implementation of the new law. Following a unanimous U.S. Senate resolution Tuesday condemning the adoption ban, the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute also announced yesterday that it is working with the State Department to appeal for clemency for those 50-some kids. And as Cohen has pointed out, a recently signed U.S.-Russian adoption treaty requires a year’s notice before it can be abrogated by either side, which gives Putin a way to enable at least those 50-some to come to the United States. As of yet, there is no sign he will do this, but some wise public and private U.S. diplomacy might help. It didn’t have to be this way. In fact, even if Putin was determined to retaliate against the Magnitsky Act, there were alternatives. Those included selling off U.S. dollars and transferring much of Russia’s national wealth fund to another currency or slowing NATO weapons shipments to Afghanistan. Adoptions by U.S. parents have long been a charged issue in Russia. A series of tragic cases involving the deaths of Russian children adopted by American parents have received enraged attention in the Russian media, tapping into a deeper nationalist discontent. This powerful current — along with the hope that reduced adoptions from abroad will help spur improvements to Russia’s orphanage and adoption system — may help explain why the ban won overwhelming support in both houses of parliament and a 56 percent approval rating in a recent public opinion survey. If there’s good news to be found in this ongoing debacle, it may be this: The Russian ban exposed important divisions within the country’s political elite, drawing opposition from, for example, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Deputy Prime Minister Olga Golodets and Russia’s Human Rights Commission. It also inspired large-scale protests by Russians against the use of children as political pawns **.** And Russia’s news agency, Novosti, reported that members of the parliament’s Committee for Constitutional Legislation and Nation Building may consider an online petition opposing the law. The petition, organized by the media outlet Novaya Gazeta, drew more than 100,000 supporters. Until now, most anti-Russia and anti-Putin sentiment has been located among the American elite. Russia’s adoption ban may now generate such sentiments among the U.S. public and further strengthen the hand of American cold warriors (already, thousands have signed a petition to Obama urging that Russian legislators who supported the adoption ban be subjected to the punishments specified by the Magnitsky bill). Alas, each time leaders cater to nationalist resentment in their own country, they increase domestic pressures on their counterparts across the ocean to do the same. This ugly standoff keeps escalating. And given the dire issues facing both countries — from Afghanistan, Iran and Syria to the spread of nuclear weapons around the world — it could have deadly consequences, which will only be abetted by a new Cold War.

‘Logan,’ ‘My Life as a Zucchini’ and other films to watch with your kids

Animated drama about orphan is touching, unforgettable. “My Life as a Zucchini” is an Oscar-nominated French-Swiss animated movie about an orphaned boy nicknamed Zucchini who goes to live in a group foster home. The occasionally mature subject matter — including the death of Zucchini’s alcoholic mother and references to sex, abuse, violence, suicide, deportation and other reasons children end up in state care — makes the movie most appropriate for older tweens and up. Kids comically discuss sex, and there’s a brief scene of a couple kissing, as well as one in which kids confront their pregnant caretaker about how she became pregnant. Expect some sad moments and conversations, but lots of funny and touching ones, too. There’s plenty to talk about after watching the movie, and it ultimately has a happy ending, as well as messages about family, friendship and empathy. (68 minutes) Sentimental faith-based adaptation explores grief, healing. “The Shack” is based on William P. Young’s best-selling (but controversial) faith-based book. Mack Phillips (Sam Worthington) doubts the existence of God after his daughter is kidnapped and killed, but he ends up having a life- changing experience: He spends the weekend with the Holy Trinity, as personified by three people (including Octavia Spencer). There’s no questionable language, drinking/smoking or sex, but there are some disturbing scenes. Two children nearly drown while camping (one requires CPR), and a young girl goes missing and is presumed dead. The movie has inspiring messages about subjects such as seeking help/counsel, processing grief in a healthy way and the power of forgiveness. That said, the ideas related to God’s role in people’s lives will particularly resonate with Christians and those open to faith-based questions. (132 minutes) Mix of iffy behavior, strong messages in well-acted YA tale. “Before I Fall” is based on Lauren Oliver’s best-selling young-adult novel about 17-year-old Samantha Kingston (Zoey Deutch), who, after a seemingly fatal car accident, wakes up to live the same Friday over and over again. The movie, like the book, has plenty of iffy teen behavior, including partying, sex, verbal and physical bullying, and lying. On some of the repeated days, there’s stronger language (including one use of “f---ing hell,” plus the occasional “b----” and “s---”) and more sexual behavior (there’s one sex scene, and Sam even propositions a teacher one day) than others. But the day always ends in a party with underage drinking and either a careless-driving- related accident or suicide. In the end, though, the movie poses questions about how teens want to be remembered and has messages about the importance of second chances, the role of empathy and the value of redemption, courage and communication. (99 minutes) Poignant, grown-up, very violent superhero movie. “Logan” is part of the X-Men series and is said to be Hugh Jackman’s final appearance as Wolverine. Unlike almost all other superhero movies (except “Deadpool”), it’s rated R, so expect a lot of edgy material. The main issue is the extremely strong, bloody comic-book violence, including characters being sliced through flesh and skulls, being shot, shown in pain and being killed. A young girl is involved in the fights, and there’s disturbing footage of children being mistreated in a laboratory setting. Suicide is considered. Language is also really salty, with many uses of “f---,” “motherf-----,” “s---” and more. A woman is shown topless, and the main character drinks frequently — the possibility that he’s an alcoholic (or a “junkie”) is discussed. Despite the mature material, the movie — which explores the importance of family — is quite powerful and is a high point in the superhero genre. Expect teens to be very eager to see it. (137 minutes)

Romney’s woman problem: He needs a new message

Mitt Romney’s electoral trouble with women — more precisely with college- educated women — is real enough. Recent polling has Romney trailing President Obama by 18 points among this group in Ohio, with similar gaps in other battleground states. The media — ever drawn to simple explanations that reinforce their own cultural expectations — have diagnosed Romney’s gender-based electoral weakness as the result of his opposition to the contraceptive mandate. This is both initially plausible and demonstrably false. More than 60 percent of American voters don’t even know Romney’s position on the mandate — a topic they rank near the bottom of their political concerns. And when pressed, a majority of women affirm that religious institutions should be exempted from the mandate. This is not particularly good news for Romney. His difficulties would not be solved by handing out the pill at his rallies or by a balloon drop of inflated condoms at the Republican convention in Tampa. The GOP’s main problem is not the contraceptive issue; it is the perception that it has become too ideological on many issues. Women and independent voters have seen a party enthusiastically confirming its most damaging stereotypes. The composite Republican candidate — reflecting the party’s ideological mean — has been harsh on immigration, confrontational on social issues, simplistic in condemning government and silent on the struggles of the poor. How many women would find this profile appealing on eHarmony? This is the hidden curse of the Republican congressional triumph of 2010. Republican activists came to believe that purity is all that is necessary for victory. But a presidential candidate, it turns out, requires a broader ideological attraction than your average tea party House freshman. Republicans forget how they have recently won the presidency. In 2000, George W. Bush campaigned — in both the primaries and the general election — on increasing the quality of education for poor children, on humane immigration reform and on expanding care by faith-based organizations for the addicted and homeless. These issues were personally important to Bush. They also signaled to independents and women that he could think beyond normal ideological boundaries. This form of “compassionate conservatism” is now broadly reviled among conservatives. The need for an analogous agenda, whatever it is called, remains unchanged. To secure a decent shot at this election, Romney will need to offer some positive vision for the common good. This is not hopeless. A number of eventual presidents, including Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, emerged weakened from their nomination battles. And Romney is not a radical figure. During the heat of the primaries, he was accused of being a closet pragmatist. Now he can finally come out. Romney’s frequent challenge is the clumsy literalism of his messaging. Faced with broad suspicion among Latino voters, Romney recently explained in Middleton, Wis.: “We’re going to have to make sure that, as we speak to Hispanic voters, that we say, ‘We’re not anti-immigrant.’ ” A better approach would be actually to speak to Hispanic voters instead of commenting, as an observer, on his own strategy. At the same Middleton event, Romney said, “We have work to do to make sure we take our message to the women of America.” Taking that message to women does not consist of repeatedly mentioning the word “women.” And it certainly does not require the transformation of religious institutions into administrative divisions of the state in the name of women’s rights. Mainly, women and independents want some reassurance that Republicans give a damn about someone other than Republican primary voters. It is not a high bar. But Romney needs to start somewhere — to pick an issue of justice and equity that he cares about deeply. It could be lowering an unemployment rate that is now more than 40 percent among African American teenagers. Or the improvement of high school dropout factories attended by 38 percent of black students and 33 percent of Latino students in America. There are plenty of sound conservative and free-market reforms that can be applied to improving the lives of the vulnerable. A successful presidential candidate must have a compelling economic message. But he must also be able to stand before the nation and say: “I will serve all American citizens, whether they support me or not. My conscience, my faith, my view of America requires it. It hurts us all when any are hopeless.” One of the best ways to appeal to women — and to humans, for that matter — is to show some humanity. **_michaelgerson@washpost.com _ ** **Read more about this debate:** Kathleen Parker: Are women just not that into Mitt? Eugene Robinson: Mitt can’t shake this image George Will: What Romney needs in a VP

In defense of the GOP’s “cosmetic” makeover

Since November, a steady stream of Republicans have offered a “reform” agenda for the GOP. In speeches and interviews, up-and-coming Republicans like Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal and Paul Ryan have urged the party to craft solutions and build new appeal to ordinary Americans. Of course, neither figure has proposed actual reform, or a departure from the arch-conservative policies that defined Mitt Romney’s bid for the presidency. With the possible exception of immigration, they’ve pushed new rhetoric for the same policies, in an attempt to navigate between real political constraints (the GOP base) and a real need for change. Yesterday, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor joined the fray with a policy speech that presented existing GOP policies on education, immigration, and entitlements, but placed them under a new “make life easier” banner, as if it somehow made a difference.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University The press, to its credit, has been fairly dismissive of this new marketing. NBC News called it a “cosmetic makeover,” while National Journal dismissed it as a “charm offensive.”    *[WSU]: Wayne State University The broader problem with these attempts to rebrand the Republican Party is that it’s hard to craft a _governing_ agenda when your ideology is based in hostility to _government_. Over the last four years, the GOP has embraced an ideology which sees government as wasteful, inefficient, and incapable of doing anything for ordinary Americans. If the Republican Party has left itself any space for embracing constructive governing solutions, it’s hard to find.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University With that said, we shouldn’t be too dismissive. If the first step to recovery is admitting you have a problem, then Republican Party is beginning a long process of rehabilitation. Yes, the GOP hasn’t pushed real reform of its policies and ideas, but it does recognize the degree to which Americans want solutions from government. Cantor’s call for pragmatism is a crack in the wall — a recognition that the GOP can’t survive as an anti-government insurgency. Put another way, this is the Republican Party’s first step toward developing an agenda for functional government. It remains to be seen if it will take a second. _Jamelle Bouie is a staff writer at _The American Prospect_, where he writes a _blog_._    *[WSU]: Wayne State University

Trump didn’t sign a religious liberties executive order, but states are filling the gap

Lawmakers in several states are introducing bills aimed at allowing religious people and businesses to refuse to provide services that conflict with their faith — measures that rights groups say are thinly veiled efforts to legalize discrimination against gay and transgender people. More than a dozen states have seen bills this year that seek to codify discrimination, from allowing adoption agencies to refuse placements with same-sex couples to allowing businesses to turn away customers based on their views of same-sex marriage or homosexuality. Such bills have been a staple of legislative sessions in conservative states since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in 2015, but they have drawn renewed attention this year because of comments from President Trump suggesting that the nation’s religious liberties eroded considerably during Barack Obama’s presidency. Last week, Trump declined to sign a sweeping executive order that would have given businesses and individuals of faith broad leeway to opt out of laws that conflict with their religion. Socially conservative groups remain hopeful — and rights groups remain fearful — that some form of that directive will eventually go into effect. In the meantime, states are poised to enact more modest versions within their own borders. A committee of the Alabama House on Wednesday advanced the “Child Placing Agency Inclusion Act,” a bill that would give faith-based adoption and foster agencies the right to use their religion to guide their child-placement decisions. Religiously affiliated agencies in Alabama already have the right to discriminate in placements, and such agencies are responsible for about a third of the state’s foster and adoptive placements. But the bill serves as a preemptive strike in case of lawsuits or legislation that might curb that right, said Rep. Rich Wingo, a Republican from Tuscaloosa. “That’s coming here too, we all know that, and so this bill for us is a preventative step forward to be proactive,” Wingo said. “This bill is not to prohibit gay or lesbian couples from adopting or fostering, it says do not discriminate … against us based on our religious belief.”  Samuel McLure, owner of the Adoption Law Firm in Alabama, testified in favor of the bill in Montgomery. As a Christian, he does not assist same-sex couples, he said. He worries that faith-based agencies that have state contracts might drop out of the adoption business rather than act against their beliefs, and that fewer agencies in the market would hurt vulnerable children in need of homes. “The Inclusion Act is about making sure that a third of the children in foster care can be served,” he said. The passage of the bill out of the House Health committee Wednesday drew a sharp rebuke from the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights group. “This effort to discriminate using taxpayer dollars is an embarrassing and dangerous distraction from the real problems facing Alabama,” Eva Kendrick, Alabama state director for the group, said in a statement. The organization “opposes this noxious bill and any attempt to make life more difficult for Alabama’s LGBTQ families and youth — especially children in out-of-home care due to crisis, abuse and neglect.” Similar bills have been introduced in Oklahoma and South Dakota, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. North Dakota, Virginia and Michigan already have such protections on the books. Alabama this year also is considering a bill that would allow doctors and other medical personnel to opt out of treatments that conflict with their faith, such as gender-reassignment therapy and surgery. Oklahoma lawmakers are mulling a broader proposal to let organizations, individuals and certain businesses refuse services if doing so conflicts with their beliefs about a “marriage, lifestyle, or behavior.” And a Texas measure would allow any licensed professional to refuse to serve a person if doing so conflicts with their faith. According to the ACLU, that could mean a teacher or a social worker could refuse to help a student because he or she is gay. Eunice Rho, advocacy and policy counsel with the ACLU, said conservatives appear to be trying to chip away at marriage rights on the margins using a variety of strategies, just as they have been doing on abortion rights. She said the ACLU and other rights groups are now trying to “maintain a baseline” that assumes that government officials, individuals, organizations and businesses of faith must adhere to the same laws as everyone else.  But Kellie Fiedorek, legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal organization that advises states on matters of religious freedom, said the nation has in fact seen “the pendulum swing further and further to the left” in recent years. “There’s an effort now to say, wait a minute, no one should be driven from public life or banned from their professions simply because of their beliefs.”

A familiar story about adoption lawyer tactics

The arguments made in the April 16 editorial “Whose child is this?” were refuted by the collective findings of three courts, including the South Carolina Supreme Court, that ruled in favor of the rights of Dusten Brown, a member of the Cherokee Nation and an Iraq war veteran, to raise his now 3½-year-old daughter, Veronica. This case is about a dedicated father’s deep desire to raise his daughter, who was never legally adopted by the adoptive couple, the Capobiancos. Beneath the surface, where The Post chose not to venture, is an all-too-familiar story about adoption lawyers who not only attempt to circumvent federal and state laws protecting Native American children and families but also seek to take advantage of new fathers actively deployed in the U.S. military. Both apply in this situation, and the South Carolina courts thwarted these efforts, holding true to the Indian Child Welfare Act and returning the child to her father, where she is now thriving. ****John Nichols** , Columbia, S.C.** The writer is a lawyer representing Dusten Brown in the Supreme Court case _Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl_.

Carolyn Hax: Struggling with anger after a shattering adoption discovery

_**Dear Carolyn:** I’m in my mid-40s and just found out a few weeks ago that I’m adopted. My adoptive mother has destroyed all of my court records, and thinks I’m being histrionic; I’m not allowed to feel angry by this withholding of information. I’m still processing everything, and I’ve started taking the steps to find my birthparents. I’ve also got my eye on a nice therapist to spend a little time chatting. _ _How do I get to the forgiveness part of this scenario when every day it seems I learn something new that I’ve been lied to about? Maybe it’s still too fresh, but I think I’m going to be camped out in Anger for a while._ **Forgiveness** **Forgiveness:** To borrow from Mr. Incredible, you’ll get there when you get there. It can be scary and uncomfortable to spend time in an unwelcome emotional place — anger, grief, uncertainty, fear — but pushing these feelings away in a scramble to feel okay again comes with its own risk, mainly that they’ll stick around below the surface somewhere. Better to just let the feelings emerge as the truth does, and deal with them as they come. To avoid doing something you regret, feel whatever comes but don’t act on it right away. Tell your adoptive mother you’re not ready to talk about it, for example, and save your talking for the nice therapist. Gather information, but don’t send any letters to birth relatives yet. Adjust to your new information first. And, of course, streamline other parts of your life. Immersion in tough feelings — while rethinking your entire foundation — is exhausting, so give yourself breaks. Extra sleep, walks, healthful food, liberal delegation of chores. Whatever your circumstances permit. Some people do get stuck in their anger (something else for the therapist). More likely, though, you will just notice one day that you’re actually used to this new information, living a new normal, and that’s when the ideas of acceptance and forgiveness get their turn in the sun. _**Hi, Carolyn:** Do you have any advice on how to care for yourself if you’re an extrovert? I’m a grad student. Last semester, I went a little crazy during exams after several long days in the library where my only human interaction was paying the cashier for coffee. To combat that this semester, I wanted to plan things with my friends (also classmates) during exams. The problem is, they immediately shoot things down, saying they’re going to need to recharge. _ _I just want someone to get dinner with. Is it jerky to say occasionally, “Can I please take 30 minutes of your recharging time so we can get pizza?”_ **Extrovert** **Extrovert:** There’s nothing jerky about inviting friends to pizza. There are jerk tendencies at play, though, if you think they owe you a “yes.” Your and your friends’ needs aren’t a unit you can “balance”; they aren’t collective needs. There are only individual ones, and each of you needs to recognize and meet your own needs independently. That’s tougher for you because companionship requires other people, and solitude is a one-person job. But you have a campus! Scout out places to mingle when your friends go underground. Use your nature to reach new people vs. trying to change the old ones. Write to  Carolyn Hax  at tellme@washpost.com. Get her column delivered to your inbox each morning at bit.ly/haxmail.

Adoption: You don’t have to be perfect to be a perfect parent

After speaking to Raenell Crenshaw about why she and her husband, Floyd, fostered and adopted many of their children, I had to follow up and ask for another rundown of the children in her care. That’s just how many kids the Crenshaws have opened their hearts and home to. First, they have two grown biological sons, and a stepdaughter and stepson. In 2000, they became the legal guardians for three siblings when a friend in their church passed away. Raenell said they felt like they had room for more, so in January of 2010, they became the foster parents of two siblings who they  adopted in 2013. In February of 2010, they became the foster parents of another boy, whom they adopted in 2013. And if that weren’t enough, they are currently fostering two more siblings. Raenell’s feeling about it all? “I love the slogan ‘You don’t have to be perfect to be a perfect parent'” she said, echoing the advertising campaign of AdoptUSKids. “Children really do want and deserve a loving home and loving family. They are willing to accept a perfect stranger.” The new ads aim to dispel people’s fears that they aren’t good enough to adopt. “The single largest factor that keeps families from acting on adoption was the fear of failing a child who has been failed by many adults already,” said Kathy Ledesma, national project director for AdoptUSKids, a project of the U.S. Children’s Bureau of the Department of Health and Human Services.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico And though no one needs to adopt as many as the Crenshaws, AdoptUSKids is working to encourage people to help siblngs stay together. There are about 402,000 children in foster care in the U.S., Ledesma said. Of those, 102,000 are waiting to be adopted, and about 23 percent need to be placed one or more siblings. April Curtis spent years in foster care, after being placed with her brother when she was 3 years old. He went on to live with his father, while she moved between homes. Their mother, who was diagnosed with mental illness, had trouble caring for them when she wasn’t on her medication. Her mother went on to have another baby girl, who was later placed for adoption. As a result, Curtis spent her teenage years trying to make sure she and her sister saw each other. The separation, she said, was “traumatic.” The courts were “providing a permanent home for my sister, but they were permanently separating her from her siblings, and we did nothing wrong,” Curtis said. She counted herself relatively lucky, however, because her sister’s adoptive parent was open to letting them see each other. “But there was no [legal] agreement… I had to walk a thin line because adoption was final. I had to honor that there was nothing that legally protected my relationship,” she said. Today, Curtis is a mother of two, has a degree in psychology, and is a sibling rights advocate. She serves on a Governor’s Joint Task Force on Sibling Post-Adoption Continuing Contract. She hopes people will combine adoption “and keeping siblings together,” she said. Or if, for some reason, an older child isn’t adoptable, she hopes that “you, as an adoptive family, welcome them into your home for the holiday and give them an opportunity to grow up with a brother or sister. We’re not there to take away, we’re there to add to it.” When the Crenshaws got the call that there was a sibling group who needed them, “it never crossed our mind that we only wanted one,” Raenell said. “We  know that there is so much benefit from keeping siblings together. There’s support, it helps them develop and mature. It’s that bond that is unbreakable.” November is national adoption month. You can find out how to adopt through Adopt Us Kids here, and how to foster here.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico _You may also be interested in:_    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico She hopes to adopt soon, but how to prepare her toddler?    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico What to expect when you’re adopting    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico **Like On Parenting on Facebook for more news, essays and advice. **    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico

Families in the midst of adopting Russian orphans urge officials to release children

A group of American families who were in the final stages of adopting children from Russia when that country banned adoptions by Americans recently came to Washington on Tuesday, offering new proposals to address Russian lawmakers’ concerns. “This group of families is dedicated to these children,” said Sabrina Dickenson Turri of Florida, who has one adopted son from Russia and was on the cusp of adopting a Russian girl when the ban was enacted in December. On the verge of tears, Turri said she spoke for 230 “pipeline” families who were offering Russian officials increased access, oversight and transparency around adopted children once they are in the United States, including visits from Russian officials to check on their welfare. She called on President Obama to address the issue with Russian President Vladimir Putin, adding, “Don’t let our children be abandoned again due to politics.” The families, speaking at the National Press Club, said they had presented their offer to U.S. lawmakers and offered it to the Russian ambassador later in the day. The ban has been criticized as a political move in retaliation for the Magnitsky Act, which imposed visa and financial sanctions on Russian officials accused of human rights abuses. Russian lawmakers, however, said it was in response to bad outcomes for Russian children adopted by Americans, including a Virginia toddler who was mistakenly left to die in a hot car and a 7-year-old boy who was sent back to Russia alone on a plane by an adoptive mother who said she could not handle him. Signed into law by Putin, the ban devastated American families who were in the process of adopting, particularly those who had met and bonded with children they had been approved to adopt. The ban also caused furor among many Russians, who marched in protest, accusing their leaders of playing politics with children’s lives. Maria Kroupina, a Russian child psychologist and professor at the University of Minnesota, urged U.S. and Russian lawmakers to act quickly on resolving the cases, saying that for children who have bonded with their American adoptive parents, the ban was “damaging to a child’s life.” “These parents are really committed to post-adoption services,” she said. Although the families said they have bonded with their children and consider themselves to be their parents, some have heard informally through lawyers or agencies in Russia that the children have since been adopted or placed in foster care domestically. But Joanna Benigno of New York, who was in the process of adopting a boy, called the reports unconfirmed rumors. “All we know is that we love these children, we’ve bonded with them, we’ve made promises that we were going to be their forever parents, we’re going to keep fighting,” she said. “However long it takes, we’re not going away.”

Ask Amy: Adoptee finds birth family, encounters denial

DEAR AMY: I am a female adoptee in my 40s. I was raised by a great family but was always curious about my roots. In my 20s I was able to reach out anonymously to my birth mother through the adoption agency, but she refused to have any contact with me. Recently the same agency located my birth father, who was very excited about meeting me. He and I have now worked out a friendly relationship, which has been hugely beneficial for me. Within this budding relationship he has revealed the name of my birth mother. Of course, I easily found her on social media, along with a slew of pictures and identities of my half siblings on her side. I went ahead and called her, knowing it was risky, but at the same time I truly was motivated to do it no matter what the outcome. Even with my gentle approach, she actually denied ever having a baby and giving it up for adoption. She said she had never heard of my birth father. This was disappointing, but I know I definitely had the right person. I am okay with leaving this woman alone now. However, now I would like to contact my half siblings. They probably don’t know anything about me, as I’m sure it has been a huge family secret. But I would like to at least try to meet them! Would you advise me to reach out directly to them? I realize this could potentially hurt my birth mother’s relationship with them, but protecting her and her feelings is not my main priority at this point. -- Curious DEAR CURIOUS: It seems likely that you will choose to contact any birth relatives you encounter. It is absolutely your right to do this, and certainly it could be beneficial for you to act on your strong desire to do this. I urge you to be gentle and sensitive to others’ feelings when you make this attempt. If you are doing this to somehow punish your birth mother for surrendering and then denying you, it would be a huge mistake. This woman gave you life and also a happy childhood with a wonderful adoptive family. You needn’t be grateful, but at least try to understand and respect her choice. This should be done with the help of a professional counselor. You may be naive about the potential impact on you. If your birth mother denies you, then be prepared for a full spectrum of reactions from other relatives, including the possibility of more denial and/or anger. DEAR AMY: I need to respond to letters and responses from you about the use of marijuana. My husband and I have smoked pot since we were teenagers. We’re both 60 years old now. We’ve raised two non-pot-smoking, hardworking boys. We didn’t hide our marijuana smoking from them and they’ve never tried it — or any other drug. -- Tokers DEAR TOKERS: There is no question in my mind that some people are able to use marijuana recreationally and not bear appreciable negative consequences. As with alcohol and other potentially addictive substances, it would be incredibly helpful to know in advance how an individual will react. It is possible that your sons have chosen not to smoke because of, not in spite of, their parents’ pot habit. It would be interesting to hear from them to see how your choices have influenced theirs. DEAR AMY: Were you dipping into the eggnog before writing your response to ‘Tightrope Walker”? First off, she is a wimp for not backing out of the gift exchange. Suggesting that she bake a batch of gingerbread men, “decorated to look like the recipient,” is some of the worst advice EVER. Can you imagine the scene. She receives a gift worth $100. Then, her recipient, who may have been the one to pay $100 on her gift, gets COOKIES? It would be a story told at Christmas for the next 50 years. “Remember that cheapskate who baked you gingerbread men after you spent $100 on that espresso machine? What a loser!” -- Christy DEAR CHRISTY: Clearly you and I represent different traditions. Yours is the one with a mean side. Amy’s column appears seven days a week at www.washingtonpost.com/advice. Write to  Amy Dickinson  at askamy@tribune.com or Ask Amy, Chicago Tribune, TT500, 435 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, Ill. 60611.

Have a friend dealing with infertility? Here are ways to help.

The holidays are a difficult time of year for women struggling to conceive. Surrounded by friends and family members, the joyful laugh of a child or cry of a baby may trigger feelings of sadness as they remind these women of the families they long for. In my psychotherapy practice, patients often ask how they can support their loved ones during this time. Frequently, words escape them as they witness the women in their lives undergoing this heartbreaking battle towards motherhood. During this time, friends and family might feel pulled to offer words of encouragement. Yet this optimism is not always well received. While it’s tempting to become an emotional cheerleader by saying, “Don’t give up,” and “It’s going to happen,” these words don’t necessarily express the empathy or compassion we hope they will convey. These phrases might imply that hard work or magical thinking can bring about a pregnancy. These words also lean in the direction of hopefulness at a time when many women may feel hopeless. When we acknowledge the loss and sadness that accompanies an empty womb, we validate what many women feel as they navigate their reproductive journeys. Yet often we are speechless because there isn’t a lot of information about what we should say and how we can say it. Mindfulness teacher and psychotherapist, Buffy Trupp, recognized the need for messages that communicate a heartfelt sentiment. After many years of working with women and families struggling to conceive, she created “Compassion Cards for Infertility.” Tossing aside the uplifting messages often found in commercial greeting cards, her cards beautifully capture the messages many women hope to hear. And with them, I explain how you can help friends suffering through these difficulties.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico _1) I promise to listen and not to push you if you don’t feel like talking._    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Presence is one of the best things you can extend to a woman who’s struggling with infertility. Sometimes she just needs someone to listen and acknowledge that nothing can solve or resolve the pain she’s going through. She might not always feel like digging into the depths and details of her fertility struggles. Let her know that you can meet her where she’s at. And never underestimate the power of listening. 2) _I think your bruises and bloating are sexy. Forget Bikini shopping. Let’s eat ice cream and watch Netflix._    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Many women may feel self-conscious about the many ways their bodies react to fertility medications. As one woman shared, “I feel like I am carrying baby weight, and yet there’s no baby.” We might inch away from inquiring about swollen bellies because we’re worried we will upset our loved ones. Don’t worry. She notices these changes and often she wants you to compassionately acknowledge them, too. 3) _Please let me know when your embryo transfer is so I can come over and cook you a healthy meal and do the dishes afterward._    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico When women are undergoing IVF, the road is long and arduous. Fertility concerns are emotionally, physically, and psychologically challenging. Infertility disrupts every aspect of a woman’s life, including her work/life balance, her emotional well-being, and her relationships. Invite conversation by asking about the various steps and stages of her journey. While she may feel alone, she won’t feel lonely knowing that she doesn’t have to remain silent and that you are there to nurture her, too. 4) _Fertility challenges can seem_ so unfair. _Your tears are always welcome on my shoulder._    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Infertility strips away a woman’s joy, confidence, and hope as she sets forth on her parenting journey, which often leaves her feeling broken, vulnerable and emotionally tender. Women navigating the world of infertility may feel like the ‘downer’ of the party. As a result, they may button up their feelings because they don’t want to burden others with their sadness. Let your friend know that her emotions are welcome and that she doesn’t have to seclude this part of herself as she struggles to conceive. 5) _Let’s go do something fun to keep your mind off the endless waiting._    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico For many women struggling to conceive, waiting to see if their pregnancy test will shine positive is one of the hardest parts of their journeys. Women who undergo IVF experience a “two-week wait.” It’s the time between the embryo transfer and beta test (a blood draw that determines if the transfer was successful). Many women experience anxiety, anticipation and suspense as they count down the days until the wait is over. During this time, distraction is a welcome companion, especially when shared with a loving friend. While there’s no magic formula that can undo the grief that accompanies infertility, let your friend or family member know you are there for her. That’s the best support you can offer, and often it’s exactly what she needs. _Dr. Juli Fraga is a psychologist and writer in San Francisco. You can follow her on Twitter@dr_fraga. _    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico **You can find more parenting coveragewashingtonpost.com/onparenting, and sign up for our newsletter here. Like On Parenting on Facebook for more essays, advice and news.**    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico _You might also be interested in:_    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico I finally joined the mom club. Did I really belong?    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico I had a miscarriage. Talk to me.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Our family made our way    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico

Ask Amy: New mother deals with disconnected granny

DEAR AMY: When I got married almost three years ago, my parents were less than supportive. Basically, they do not approve of my husband, and (despite his efforts to provide for our family) they probably never will. I became pregnant with my parents’ first grandchild. I was excited and told my mother right away. Her reaction was to say, “Well, I really hope you aren’t.” That shocked me to my core. I eventually let go of that hurt. When my son was born, my mother didn’t come to visit until my son was almost 2 weeks old, and she only stayed for two days. I try not to judge my own mother against my mother-in-law, but my mother-in-law has been an absolute angel. I feel fully supported and appreciate her hands-on help. I recently found out that we’re expecting our second child. I told my mother right away, hoping that with almost three years of marriage under my belt she might be at least a little joyful, but again, no excitement, no smile or hug or any other sort of positive reaction. Am I hoping for too much from her? How should I address my needs, or should I just let it go? If it weren’t for my mother-in-law, I’d be at a total loss for any parental support in my life. -- Hopeful in the Midwest DEAR HOPEFUL: At this point you should assume that your mother’s reaction has everything to do with her, and very little to do with you. You might gain some insight by communicating — not about your goals and your disappointment in her, but about her own life. She may have been ambivalent about her own abilities as a mother. Start by saying, “Mom, your reaction to my pregnancies has been less than enthusiastic. Are you worried about me as a mother? Are you worried about you as a grandmother?” The more you understand about her, the less surprised you will be by her reactions. Ultimately you will have to accept your mother’s deficits and raise your children joyfully with people who are open and loving toward them. Unfortunately your mother might not ever get there, and, yes, then it will be time to let it go. DEAR AMY: I read the letter from “Stuck,” about his wife, who picked on him and their kids, blew the criticism out of proportion and belittled and verbally abused them. That was my mother. A small thing would set her off, and then it would turn into hours of tirade. When I tried to go into my room to do homework or get a moment’s piece, she followed me and called me a coward. My mother was bipolar and this behavior was how her mental illness manifested, so sitting down calmly and reasoning did no good. She was unwilling to get help, until legal action was threatened by her landlord, whom she verbally threatened. It took until her 70s to get help and now, in her 80s and with proper medication, she is able to have relationships she couldn’t have before. If the mom won’t get help, the husband and kids should leave. I wish that every time my father threatened to take us and leave, he had followed through. -- Been There DEAR BEEN THERE: This is a devastating account of what it is like for a spouse and children to live in a household with an abuser. There are many reasons people become abusive, but the point I want to emphasize (and the point you raise so well) is that parents must protect their children. I hope the man who described himself as “Stuck” in a family with a verbally abusive spouse is inspired to act on behalf of himself and his children. DEAR AMY: You were way too harsh on “Just a Girl Doing Her Job,” who didn’t want to talk to co-workers outside of the office. She sounds like an introvert to me, and it can be very depleting to interact with people if you are introverted. -- More Understanding DEAR UNDERSTANDING: “Just a Girl . . .” didn’t describe feeling uncomfortable interacting with co-workers, but she did express with frankness that she simply isn’t interested in them. Amy’s column appears seven days a week at www.washingtonpost.com/advice. Write to  Amy Dickinson  at askamy@tribpub.com or Ask Amy, Chicago Tribune, TT500, 435 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, Ill. 60611. by the Chicago Tribune

Foster parents can’t lawfully carry guns in Oklahoma around their foster children

If you want to be a foster parent in Oklahoma, or to be a prospective adoptive parent, you need to sign a “Weapon Safety Agreement,” which provides:    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico One reason law-abiding adults get handgun-carry licenses, of course, is to defend not just themselves but also their families. But the agreement bars foster parents and prospective adoptive parents who have such licenses from having guns available to defend either themselves or their foster children. Stephen and Krista Pursley, who have fostered 34 children in Oklahoma are suing (with the help of the Second Amendment Foundation). They argue (among other things that) this violates the Second Amendment. They argue it violates the Oklahoma Constitution, which provides,    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico And they argue it violates Oklahoma carry licensing law, which provides (paragraph breaks added), I think that a state may impose some conditions on foster parents — with whom the state places children and whom the state compensates for some of the costs of raising children — just as it may impose some conditions on state employees. And those conditions may sometimes, I think, require foster parents (like employees) to give up some of their normal rights while “on the job,” on pain of losing the foster parent status (or employment). But, as with other rights (such as the First Amendment), I think Second Amendment rights and similar state constitutional rights don’t vanish altogether; at the very least, the government should have to show that there is a real factual basis for the restriction. Perhaps the Oklahoma Department of Human Services can show that foster parents’ licensed handgun carry around their children really is on net dangerous; but I doubt it, and at the very least I think that in this case the department should be required to show this, as to the Second Amendment claim. But the Pursleys might just win on the statutory claim, with no need to reach the constitutional claim. The statute does seem to leave it to the state legislature, not to municipalities or to executive departments, to decide when gun carrying should be restricted. The statute makes that even more explicit as to municipalities, but I think the quoted material also suggests the same as to agencies such as the Department of Human Services. Query, by the way, whether the Oklahoma Constitution’s provision that “but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons” suggests that bodies other than the legislature can’t regulate the carrying of weapons.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico In any event, an interesting case. Compare the Massachusetts foster parent no- spanking-even-of-your-own-children case, though of course there are major differences between the matters.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico By the way, the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation people tell me there are 239,490 concealed carry permits in Oklahoma; since I suspect that most people have at most one permit per household, let’s say that’s about 180,000 households. The census reports that there are about 1,450,000 households in Oklahoma, so about 1/8 of all households have someone with a concealed carry permit.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico UPDATE: Just to make clear, I assume that “adoptive family home” here refers just to a home where the parents are _seeking_ to adopt the child living with them; once the child is adopted, I take it that the parents would have the same rights as biological parents do. If the Department sought to regulate parents’ gun carrying around their finally adopted children, that would pose even more serious problems, I think.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico

So President Obama has come out in favor of same-sex marriage. Now what? His announcement Wednesday provoked an outpouring of appreciation from the gay community, but it also raised questions about whether and how it would translate into actions. Having made history as the first sitting president to support gay unions, he could leave it at that, turning his attention back to the economic concerns that remain the top priority for American voters. But his endorsement has increased hopes among gay rights groups that Obama will take a more forceful stand on gay rights as well as gay marriage, which remains a divisive and emotional subject that could complicate his reelection efforts. “This is the most LGBT-friendly administration in history, and the things the White House has done and the administrative agencies have done on behalf of [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender] people are tremendous,” said Rachel B. Tiven, executive director of Immigration Equality, which advocates for same-sex couples in the immigration system. “And yet, everybody wants full equality, not half equality.” Groups say they hope Obama’s pronouncement clears the way for him to more vocally oppose the Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law that bans recognition of same-sex marriage at the federal level. Obama has called the law discriminatory and directed the Justice Department not to defend it in court, but groups say they hope he will play a more prominent role in the fight to repeal it. The groups also would like him to provide greater protections for gay spouses at risk of deportation. While heterosexual married people are permitted to sponsor their foreign national spouses for citizenship, gay couples do not have that right even if they are legally married in their home states. The Obama administration adopted a policy last year that allows immigration judges to suspend deportation in some of these cases. But groups have been lobbying the administration to allow such couples to stay in this country while Congress and the courts contemplate the fate of the 1996 legislation. Gay rights advocates also are hoping Obama will move forward with an executive order that would ban discrimination against gay employees by government contractors. Obama’s decision last month not to follow through with the order angered some supporters, who accused him of failing to deliver on a campaign promise. Senior administration officials indicated there was no intention to reverse course on that decision, describing it as a separate issue. It was a sign that Obama’s announcement in support of gay marriage did not represent a wholesale change in approach. Despite his endorsement Wednesday, Obama suggested that he would leave it to the states to decide whether to legalize same-sex marriage or not, a position that drew rebukes from some liberal critics. “Obama has endorsed marriage equality federalism — not the notion that marriage for gays and lesbians is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution that can never be taken away,” Adam Serwer wrote in Mother Jones. “In other words, Obama has left room for more evolution.” Still, gay groups say Obama has done more for their movement than any other president. Under his leadership, Congress repealed the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy toward gay service members. In October, Obama signed a bill that makes it a federal crime to assault a person over his or her sexual orientation or gender identity. And the groups hailed Obama’s decision not to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court as a “watershed” moment for their cause. They say he has handed them a powerful cudgel with his emotional statement in favor of gay marriage. Obama has struggled to articulate a clear and consistent position on gay unions and most recently had said he was grappling with the issue. But on Wednesday, he spoke in deeply personal terms about his newfound support for such unions. That the U.S. president has thrown his support behind this cause is a tremendous boon in the fight for hearts and minds, said Evan Wolfson, president of Freedom to Marry, a prominent pro-gay-marriage group. “The president has lent his tremendous moral authority, and gave a very powerful personal example, that will help spur action and persuade many people,” Wolfson said. “That’s now a historical fact and a tremendous inspiration that will reverberate at kitchen tables around the country.” More from PostPolitics: \- Obama endorses same-sex marriage \- Gay-marriage stance brings uncertain consequences \- Politicians who support gay marriage \- The Fix: Obama’s calculated gamble on gay marriage

Romanian orphans subjected to deprivation must now deal with dysfunction

Izidor Ruckel’s devotion to the cause of Romania’s institutionalized children is driven in part by what he has seen happen to them. As a functioning adult who lives on his own, he is the rarity. He has kept in touch with many fellow orphans from Sighetu, and he has seen the ravages of the system play out in many who were rescued when he was — and in some who never got out. This does not surprise experts who have worked with Romania’s orphans. “They were unusual kids,” said Jane Aronson, a physician and founder of the Worldwide Orphans Foundation, who has studied orphanages around the world. “They were so punished that they were depressed. And many of them even had psychotic features, autistic-like behavior and had severe failure to thrive and were tiny.” Cognitive ability and psychological well-being correlate directly with the amount of attention and nurturing children receive when they are young, according to recent research that includes studies of Romanian institutions. Everything from brain size to intellectual prowess to the ability to form emotional bonds to staying focused on a job is improved when children receive attention, are held and read to, experts say. Romania’s communist-era orphans got next to none of this. As a result, they suffered from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, psychiatric illnesses and bipolar disorder, Aronson said. They also had the most severe reactive attachment disorder she has seen anywhere. “It is a pathologic and psychiatric diagnosis where an individual person, a child in this case, would be unable to have affectional connection to an adult, to a parent, incapable of exchange of love.” Some of these effects can be reversed if children leave an institution early enough, said Charles Nelson, a professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and Boston Children’s Hospital who, along with colleagues from the University of Maryland and Tulane University, is conducting a longitudinal study in Romania comparing children’s development in government-run orphanages to high-quality foster care. Nelson’s new book on the topic, “Romania’s Abandoned Children,” due out this month, describes the stark disadvantages faced by institutionalized children, whose cognitive development is likely to be irreversibly stunted if they stay in orphanages past age 2. “The brain is dependent on experience to develop normally,” he said. “What happens in situations of neglect, such as kids raised in institutions, is that the experiences are lacking. So the brain is sort of in a holding pattern saying, ‘Okay, so where’s the experience? Where’s the experience? Where’s the experience?’ And when the experience fails to occur, those circuits either fail to develop or they develop in an atypical fashion — and the result is, in a sense, the mis-wiring of circuits.” “The big question is, what happens 10 or 20 or 30 years down the line,” he said. “The speculation would be you will progressively find yourself more and more disadvantaged or more and more handicapped.” Nelson’s study found such stark differences between children in institutions and foster care that the Romanian government began its own foster care system and in 2005 passed a law prohibiting institutionalization of children younger than 2 . But across the world, as international adoption has increasingly dried up, more children are remaining in orphanages for longer periods of time, according to a 2013 report by the New York-based Donaldson Adoption Institute. Attachment has not come easily to the orphans of Sighetu. Of the dozen whose current whereabouts The Washington Post was able to trace, all remain single. Few live independently. A close friend of Izidor’s, Cardos, never got out. On his last trip to Romania, Izidor tracked him down in an adult facility that was not much better than the orphanage, with the same stench of urine. Like Izidor, Cardos had a lame leg. He played the piano beautifully and had no mental handicaps. But he never learned to function outside an institution. Among those who were taken in by Americans, the outcomes varied widely. Another friend of Izidor’s, Christina, attended community college for a time in San Diego, runs a marathon every year, and wants to be an athletics coach. Ana, the singer, has developmental issues and still lives with her adoptive family in Michigan. They have hired staff to help take care of her. Isabella, the other girl adopted by the Ruckels, now lives in a group home for disabled adults near their house and sees them regularly. ****But some were too deeply damaged to fit in with adoptive families. “They were so violent, so traumatized, the family couldn’t even care for them,” Izidor says. Some families sent children to U.S. institutions or back to Romania when they were unable to handle them. Izidor didn’t leave Sighetu until he was 11, but Nelson speculated that he may have been helped by some factor in his genetic makeup — or by the fact that he was 6 months old when he arrived at the orphanage. “Somewhere at 6 or 7 months, kids start to form attachments, and even if it’s broken later it seems to help if there was an initial attachment,” Nelson said. “So it’s possible that those six months in a family served as a protective factor.” Brad Horn contributed to this report.

Poll: Public sours on what 2013 will bring

Public expectations about the year ahead are bleaker than they’ve been in more than a decade, with Republicans leading the way in adopting gloomier outlooks, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. A bare 53 percent majority of all Americans are “hopeful” about their lives in 2013; some 44 percent say they are instead more “fearful.” The assessment about what’s in store for the world is even more grim: a record low 40 percent report being hopeful about the next year, with 56 percent saying they are more fearful.  Those personally hopeful numbers are down sharply from four years ago when 63 percent said as much in the wake of President Obama’s historic first election. The trend is even more striking compared to expectations for 2007, before the national economic bubble burst. In December 2006, nearly three-quarters were more hopeful than fearful about the coming year. Perceptions of a lingering recession, weak economic recovery and fears of falling off the “fiscal cliff” underpin these sagging expectations. Over three quarters think the economy is still in a recession, despite improved economic indicators such as falling unemployment. The likelihood that the December 31 deadline for Congress and Obama to reach a new budget deal will fall through compounds negative perceptions for the coming year. Some 45 percent think it is likely that Obama and Republicans in Congress will not reach an agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff. Personal fears about the new year rise to 58 percent among those who think this failure is likely to happen. Nearly six in 10 are very concerned about the national economy if a budget agreement is not reached soon. Among those with high level concern, 53 percent are fearful about the future. Not all the perceptions are slipping. Fully 53 percent say that based on their own experiences the economy has begun to recover, a sentiment that’s crept up steadily from 36 percent in November 2011 to a new high point. Still, even among those who see recovery happening, most see it as a weak one. Republicans and Democrats report far different readings on the recovery as well as the hopes for their personal lives. Over seven in 10 Democrats say the economy is beginning to recover, but fewer than half as many Republicans - 35 percent - see the economy making a turnaround.  Rising fears are concentrated among Republicans, peaking at 72 percent and up a remarkable 52 percentage points from 2006. In 2008, after Obama’s victory, Republicans split 44 to 54 percent between hope and fear. Democrats are far more positive, with 75 percent hopeful about their personal lives, exactly the same as 2008. Even during George W. Bush’s presidency, majorities of Democrats expressed a hopeful outlook. Independents splits about evenly between hope and fear. In separate questions about the coming year, the public divides narrowly between optimism and pessimism about the state of the economy, the way things are going in the country overall and chances for bipartisan agreement in Washington. A 55 percent majority are optimistic about the policies Obama will pursue in the coming year, a bit of a comedown from the 68 percent who were optimistic when he was first elected in 2008. The current rating is propped up by 85 percent optimism among Democrats, a point shy of their rating four years ago. Republican fears extend to these areas too - eight in 10 or more report pessimism on the economy, the country and President Obama’s agenda. Two thirds are pessimistic about cooperation between Obama and Republicans in Congress. The public does remain bullish on one subject; two thirds are optimistic about their own family’s financial situation. That optimism crosses partisan bounds and has been stable for the last four years.

Wired for kindness: Science shows we prefer compassion, and our capacity grows with practice

A three-month old infant sits propped up in her mother’s lap, entranced by a puppet show. A small dog tries to lift a heavy bag, and a kind teddy bear helps. Then, as the dog struggles once again to lift the bag, a mean bunny grabs it away. After the puppet show, the infant is shown both the teddy bear and the dog – and stares at the kind doggy. For infants, that stare indicates liking. It’s not just newborns. Given the same kind-mean choice 80 to 100 percent of infants and toddlers up to two years old prefer the kind puppet. That three-month-old was part of a series of such studies by Kiley Hamlin at the University of British Columbia suggesting we come into this world wired to prefer kindness. The data adds to research challenging the assumption that self-interest alone guides us through life, painting human nature as a mix of self-interest and compassion. And converging date strongly suggests we can get better at strengthening the better side of our nature. _[Related: The Dalai Lama’s translator explains why being kind to yourself is good for the world]_    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico This scientific line of evidence was what the Dalai Lama cited – rather than any religious beliefs – in urging us all to embrace compassion, as I found when I interviewed him for my book “A Force for Good: The Dalai Lama’s Vision for Our World.” Compassion, he says – and science agrees – is innate, and can be strengthened like a muscle. And, he adds, mobilizing our compassion just might provide us much of the fuel needed to tackle humanity’s most daunting challenges, from economic and racial inequity to the slow-motion species suicide our environmental impacts may bring. Some of the evidence that compassion can be cultivated comes from studies on “social-emotional learning” (or SEL), school programs that complement the standard emphasis on academics with age-attuned lessons in self-awareness, managing upsetting emotions, empathy, relationship skills, and smart life decisions. One SEL program, MINDUP, increased not just empathy in elementary school students, but also upped the number of their actual acts of kindness, according to a study published in January in the journal Developmental Psychology. A meta-analysis of such studies with a total of 270,000 schoolchildren and teenagers found SEL programs, on average, boost pro-social activities like helping others and positive attitudes about school itself by ten percent, while anti-social indicators like fights and bullying drop ten percent – and often more in the schools where students need help most. These programs, supporters argue, buttress positive human capacities, and help innoculate children against the harmful aspects of competition they are likely to encounter in school. _[Related: Are you raising nice kids? A Harvard psychologist gives 5 ways to raise them to be kind]_    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Research shows that as they enter school around age 5 or so five or so, children shift away from their innate altruism toward selfishness. But when pre-schoolers at the Center for Investigating Healthy Minds at the University of Wisconsin took part in a curriculum that had them think about the advantages of kindness – and used re-enforcers like giving a child a sticker in a “kindness garden” poster for being nice – the expected shift toward selfishness as they entered kindergarten at age five was neutralized. And in a study published in PLOS One in 2012, among fourth and fifth graders the more acts of kindness, the happier and more popular the child and the less likely to be bullied. Strengthening our compassionate side is not just for kids. At Germany’s Max Planck Institute, as neuroscientist Tania Singer reported last year in the journal Social and Cognitive Neuroscience, our compassion circuitry activates the neural network for caring for our young that we share with all mammals. Understandably, it also increases the likelihood we will help someone in need. Bonus: compassion also activates brain circuits for pleasure and good feeling.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico A daily practice of minutes spend cultivating an attitude of compassion strengthens all this wiring, the Max Planck studies found – as have research with compassion-boosting programs for adults at Stanford University, Emory University, and the University of Wisconsin at Madison. The steps are simple – any of us can try it. One widely used method for increasing compassion is to simply close your eyes, picture people who have been especially kind to you in your life, and repeat silently to yourself phrases like, “May they be safe. May they be happy. May they be free from suffering. May they have the ease of well-being.” Then you do the same for yourself, then for your loved ones, then with people in your area, and finally for everyone everywhere. If you feel inspired, you can add people you have difficulties with. As with any fitness program, the more you practice, the stronger the benefits seem to be. When neuroscientists at the University of Wisconsin tested the meditation equivalent of Olympic champs (15,000-55,000 lifetime practice hours) during this practice, the observed boost in the brain’s centers for positive feeling was off the charts. I tried this method the other day, eyes open, while walking 50 blocks through the human thickets of mid-town Manhattan, making those “lovingkindness” wishes for strangers as they passed. Though I started out in a rather drab mood, by the end of the walk I found myself smiling broadly. _Daniel Goleman, a psychologist and science journalist, is the author ofA Force For Good: The Dalai Lama’s Vision for Our World._    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico If you liked this story on Inspired Life, you may also enjoy:    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Six science-based ways money actually can buy happiness    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico How Ghandi and Paul McCartney used dreams to solve problems and surface great ideas    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico Want to experience the deep, mystical sleep of our ancestors? Try turning off your lights at dusk    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico **Want more inspiring news and ideas for improving your life? Sign up for the Inspired Life Saturday newsletter** here.    *[WSU]: Wayne State University   *[Tue]: Tuesday   *[Wed]: Wednesday   *[UNM]: University of New Mexico

I was adopted. It was the greatest rejection, and acceptance, of my life.

I always knew that giving me up for adoption had been hard for my mother. I knew this before I met her, when I romanticized her in my prepubescent mind, imagining she was a foreign princess who wept daily about my absence. I knew it at 18, when I met her for the first time and realized she was just a normal person who made a very difficult choice, in an attempt to make the best of a disaster, for both of us. But when I knew it sadly in my bones the most of all was the moment I became a mother, when I was handed my freshly born son and gazed into his murky, inky eyes for the first time. I was loved with ferocity, with the purest kind of parental devotion, born from an incredible yearning to have a child. My parents played with us, took us fun places, talked to us, hugged us. They always had time for us, they always had patience. When I think of what could have been, I am grateful that I was given away, and that I was chosen by them. Being adopted represents the greatest rejection and the greatest acceptance possible. The one person who is supposed to want you the most doesn’t. There may be valid reasons, causes, excuses, but at the core you are a rejected pup, the runt of the litter. On the other side of the transaction, you are the prize, the chosen gem, the person who has been imagined and fantasized about for a long time. An adoptee is the most unwanted wanted person in the world. It’s that dichotomy of experience that makes being adopted so confusing for children. You are constantly told that you are “special,” that you were “chosen,” but you know that you weren’t chosen originally, and that rejection seems to rob you of any special status. Insomuch that one man’s trash is another man’s treasure, adoption seeks to be the human equivalent of a recycling plant, taking broken families and reimagining and repurposing them as ones that function and can love one another. There is a sort of elegant balance in this contract. I have two mothers. For one, my birth represented a low point, a disappointment, a time of great stress and upheaval. For the other one, my arrival signaled a new beginning, a time of joy and elation. In many ways, being adopted ensures you are grounded and pragmatic. It allows you to believe the hype that you are special, while lurking in the background is the very real proof that you aren’t.  In many ways, our genes connect and define us. I look like my birth mother; we even share the same giggle. But my love of literature comes from the hours my (adoptive) father spent teaching me to read, and putting on funny character voices to make me laugh. My love of the absurd and silly was honed by my (adoptive) mother’s hilarious sayings, which we call “Mum-isms.” When I held my baby, talked softly to him and noticed all those similarities that I was never able to match on my parents’ faces, the connection between the two of us had its own heartbeat; it was a primal, throbbing bond that bared its teeth at any suggestion of separation. Giving me up for adoption was the right choice for my first mother, it was the right choice for me, but it’s a choice I know that I couldn’t have made. That deep maternal connection with a child doesn’t necessarily require shared DNA. It’s all the days that follow that matter, not that first day here on Earth. The bond I share with my second mother is closer than most. When my son was born, she was right there holding my leg and cheering me on. Getting so excited that she messed up the counting “6, 7, 9, 11,” prompting me to yell at her to shut up. My childhood memories, our family traditions and our constant contact are the threads that connect us. Birthday parties filled with laughter, a bouncy castle in the garden, a Brazil nut and a satsuma nestled in the bottom of my Christmas stocking, and every night ending with a kiss and a hug before bed. Because of these things, and so many more, there is an invisible connection among my parents, my brother and me. Our bond was made from love, daily expressions of love, love when we didn’t even deserve it, love when we needed it the most. Love that compounded over the years and created a family. That’s the sort of love story I want to continue to write for my son.

A child’s needs should be paramount in adoption

A secondary headline with the June 16 Metro article “A web of families” read, “In six hours, social media helped couple in Md. adopt the child of their dreams.” This sentence neatly — though probably unwittingly — sums up the crux of the problem with same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption: It is focused on the desires of adults, not the needs of children. A child is not a commodity to be coveted, like the car or house of one’s dreams. I have no doubt that Brad Letson and Brad Benton are loving toward Kyler and are probably great dads. But neither of them can ever be Kyler’s mom. Even with an “open adoption” arrangement with his birth mother, Kyler is being deprived of the unique, irreplaceable impact of a life with a mother and father. It is my hope that every adult, including Mr. Letson and Mr. Benton, can experience the love that is inherent in raising a child. But that fulfillment of adult desires cannot come at the expense of the needs of the child. ****Tommy Valentine** , Alexandria**

Arguing with anti-vaxers: Maybe not a good idea

"These results suggest that correcting vaccine myths may not be an effective approach to promoting vaccination," the authors concluded. How to explain this seeming paradox? "Our explanation is that when you're challenged, you often try to defend the underlying belief or attitude that's come into question," said Nyhan, an assistant professor of government at Dartmouth. That's especially true when the issue is something a person cares deeply about. Anyone who has followed the vaccinate-or-don't-vaccinate debate knows that it qualifies. "If misperceptions are the expression of a more generalized antipathy toward vaccines," the study notes, "then addressing these myths piecemeal is unlikely to be effective. A more comprehensive strategy is likely to be required."  Currently, there is little evidence-based research on vaccine messaging, Nyhan said. In the end, public health advocates may have to accept that while the vast majority of people in this country still vaccinate, some never will, Nyhan said. "We have to be realistic," he said. "It doesn't mean we should give up hope."

The welfare debate, and why it’s back

With DeLorean-like speed, welfare has jumped to center stage as an election issue after hibernating for more than a decade. Mitt Romney's initial attacks on Obama for allowing state's to propose their own alternatives to the traditional welfare work targets earned four Pinocchios from the Post's Fact Checker. The Obama campaign's responses earned three. But Romney has produced a new ad on the same issue, begging the question of how much this issue matters (if at all) and why Romney is focusing on it. A new poll from the Washington Post and the Kaiser Family Foundation provides some clues. In the 16 years since Bill Clinton and Republicans joined forces to pass welfare reform, Democrats and Republicans have grown farther apart on the basic question of whether government should try to improve living standards or leave people should take care of themselves.  The survey -- conducted July 25 to August 5 among more than 3,000 randomly selected adults -- repeated the same question asked in 1996, asking respondents which statement came closer to their view: 1. "The government in Washington should do everything possible to improve the standard of living of all Americans." 2. "This is not the government's responsibility, each person should take care of themselves." The overall numbers hardly changed at all -- 51 percent said government should improve living standards in 1998, 52 percent in 2012. But beneath the surface, Republicans and Democrats were on the move. Fully 71 percent of Republicans now say "each person should take care of themselves," up from 59 percent in 1998. An even higher percentage of Democrats now say take the opposite view -- 76 percent -- up 11 points from 1996. Romney's focus on welfare — whose key purpose is to assure a minimum standard of living — could energize his party's base, which is much more dubious about the government's role in lending a helping hand. It also may help cement Obama to a "big government" image in a negative way. Seven in 10 Americans thought Obama preferred a "larger government with more services" in a Washington Post-ABC News poll last year. And in a Post-ABC poll last month, independents said by 42 to 20 percent that Obama's views on the "size and role of government" were a major reason oppose him rather than support him (34 percent said they weren't a factor). There are risks for Romney as well. In pushing the issue, Romney will have to fend off accusations of race baiting and could draw even more focus to his own personal wealth. No matter how it plays out, it's clear that partisans are even more ripe for the debate as they were in the 1990s.

Depression besets adoptive mother soon after baby’s arrival

In February 2008, my husband, Ari, and I brought home from South Korea our baby Jacob, whose adoption we had begun in 2006. Our first few weeks together were exhausting and wonderful but also scary as Jake came down with one illness after another — 104-degree fevers, croup, tummy troubles, you name it — and our pediatrician was concerned about his large head size and ordered tests to rule out hydrocephalus. Weeks of sleepless nights later, I was feeling wildly unqualified to mother this beautiful stranger and wondering why parenthood was so much more stressful than I’d expected. I was also surprised to detect a flicker of hesitation about my authenticity as Jake’s mother. Was he really “mine”? Was I up to this job? By late March I had lost interest in eating or even getting out of bed. I burst into tears daily, upsetting Ari and Jake. I withdrew from the baby we’d longed for even as I was terrified that the social worker overseeing our post-placement period would take Jake away if I let on how awful I felt. What was wrong with me that I couldn’t embrace motherhood as so many of my friends — both “bio” moms and adoptive ones — had done? I’d never been depressed in my life, but at age 39, I was now facing a full-blown bout. Everyone has heard about postpartum depression, which can be triggered when hormones go haywire after a woman has given birth and is coping with the exhausting, round-the-clock demands of an infant. But new research has focused on what I unexpectedly felt four years ago: post-adoption depression. And it turns out it’s not that uncommon. A March study of 300 mothers by Purdue University researchers found that post- adoption depression syndrome, or PAD, afflicts between 18 and 26 percent of adoptive mothers in the first year after an infant or child is placed with them. With approximately 120,000 children being adopted annually in the United States, the Purdue report suggests that tens of thousands of adoptive mothers may be suffering from depression. “When an adoptive parent struggles in adjusting to the new role of parenthood, she or he may hear ‘But this was your life goal! You got what you wanted!’ ” says Karen J. Foli, an assistant professor at Purdue’s School of Nursing and a co-author of the study along with Purdue’s Susan South and Eunjung Lim. Foli, who also co-authored the book “The Post-Adoption Blues: Overcoming the Unforeseen Challenges of Adoption,” says that adoptive parents’ unrealistic expectations, often sky-high after a long period of waiting to become a parent, can clash with the day-to-day demands of child care. In fact, says Lisa Catapano, an assistant professor of psychiatry at George Washington University Medical Center, all new parents, biological or adoptive, contend with the same challenges that contribute to depression: “Sleep deprivation, a change in your relationship with your partner, a greater need for help from others, the stress of caring for a new baby, the change in your identity” and, for biological mothers, “hormonal shifts.” While adoptive parents “may not have the hormonal changes,” the other stressors are there, says Catapano, who treats both adoptive and biological mothers for depression. For these reasons, PAD comes as a nasty surprise to some new adoptive mothers. “Adoptive parents often have this sense that they are going to be a ‘super parent,’ ” says Anne Pearce, director of adoption services with Baltimore’s Board of Child Care, a private adoption agency. “But sometimes people are surprised or disappointed by some aspects of parenting: the exhaustion, or missing being in the workplace after looking forward for so long to being with a baby. I tell my clients, ‘Whatever you are surprised by is no surprise.’ ” Capitol Hill resident Jenny Nordstrom, who had struggled with infertility before adopting daughter Sienna, now 5, remembers being stunned by how trying the early days with a baby could be, in unexpected ways. For example, she said, “My daughter’s schedule was so different from those of other kids, so there we’d be at the park when no one else was. I am a really social person, and I felt so isolated.” Yet after waiting so long to be chosen by a birth mom and then traveling out of state to be present at the delivery, “I remember thinking ‘How can I be anything but overjoyed?’ ” says Jenny, 44. After two months, she sought treatment for depression but resisted trying antidepressants for another year. Eventually she did and began feeling like her old self. Kim Severn Denny, of Auburn, Wash., had postpartum depression after giving birth to her son Quinn, now 8, yet she says she was unprepared when similar symptoms hit her after adopting her daughter Lauren nearly five years later. “I was in denial about my depression after adopting Lauren, because I thought ‘I adopted her, I didn’t deliver her,’ ” she says. A mental health counselor, a friend from church and her general practitioner all helped Severn Denny recover through a combination of counseling, dietary changes and keeping a journal of her emotions. In my own case, anxiety about whether I was a “good enough” mother and about whether I’d be able to help our son navigate life in a world that will ascribe traits to him simply because he is Asian, coupled with worry about his nonstop sicknesses and the attendant deprivation, all set the stage for my depression. But it was only when I stumbled upon Foli’s book one day at a bookstore that I began to understand why I was despairing. Antidepressants, counseling and a husband, family and circle of friends who stuck by me, sometimes just to keep me company while I did little but stare at my uneaten lunch, helped me recover. That, and learning in time to trust my parental instincts. Now, nearly five years after we brought him home, Jake is thriving and I feel at home in these maternal shoes. And while I wouldn’t wish depression on anybody, temporarily losing my sense of hope about life made its return that much sweeter. Rogers Nazarov is a writer in the District. She is working on a memoir about depression after adoption.

Ask Amy: Sisters consider family-style adoption

DEAR AMY: I am a 40-year-old woman and have lived with my sister (six years younger) since we moved out of our parents’ house together 14 years ago. We bought a house together years ago and both have very fulfilling lives. Neither of us has had a boyfriend for years. Our focus is on work, family, friends and our dog. Our parents keep giving us a hard time because they want grandchildren. My sister is now pressuring me to consider adopting a baby together. It sounds like a good idea, but I don’t see how it would work well. She insists that our lives will just envelope around the child. We both work full-time demanding jobs and we are financially comfortable, but a child adds a lot of expense and time (also, this gives a whole other meaning to “having two mommies”). She suggested it could work the same way we handle our dog, where I am considered Mama and she is Auntie. Obviously, there is a big difference between a dog and a baby. What if my sister ends up meeting the man of her dreams and moves out? Will she then be okay leaving the child behind? It seems like it could turn into a legal nightmare. On the other hand, we are not getting any younger and it would be great if we could give our parents a grandchild. What do you think? -- Considering Adoption DEAR CONSIDERING: Giving your parents a grandchild is not a good reason to have a baby. I love the idea of adopting within the family but you and your sister should explore this carefully, thoroughly, and with abundant legal and counseling assistance. If you decide to move forward, I’d urge you to consider becoming foster parents. According to the National Foster Parent Association, more than 400,000 children are living without permanent families in out-of-home placement. You and your sister (and your parents) might be the ideal family to offer your love and care to a child in need. To learn more, check nfpaonline.org. DEAR AMY: I’ve had a good friendship with someone for 10 years. We both enjoy music. Last month, he asked me to give him a ride to and from the hospital where he was having a procedure done. I was unable to do this and told him so. Apparently he did not believe me and never answered my e-mail when I inquired about the procedure. Then at a musical event that we both normally attend he shunned me. I know he gets easily offended and sometimes acts this way toward other people. This has caused me to not attend several musical events because I feel uncomfortable. Should I try to reach out to him by e-mail to see if this friendship can be salvaged? -- Shunned DEAR SHUNNED: E-mail doesn’t work for you. You should give him a call or speak to him directly the next time you see him. Ask him how he is doing, and if the atmosphere thaws between you, you can move on in friendship. Otherwise, please continue to boogie to your beat, regardless of the awkwardness. DEAR AMY: “One-Legged Lady” asked about disclosing her amputation to dates. I, too, am a below-knee amputee (guy) who re-entered the dating game. If this woman wants romance, there is nothing more attractive than a confident woman. So here is what you do: On the second date invite the lucky guy to engage in some kind of sporty outdoor fun. Maybe a brisk walk, a bike ride, tennis, softball, archery, bird-watching, gardening, whatever. On the day of the event ditch the trousers for a skirt or shorts and let your freak flag fly. He will ask questions and One-Legged should look him in the eye and say, “Stuff happens. No one leaves this planet with what they arrived with.” If he doesn’t swoon immediately then there is no romance in the poor guy and she can move on. This worked for me — and my chosen one and I are in it to win it nearly three years later. -- Len in Cupertino, Calif. DEAR LEN: I have one word for you: Awesome. Amy’s column appears seven days a week at www.washingtonpost.com/advice. Write to  Amy Dickinson  at askamy@tribune.com or Ask Amy, Chicago Tribune, TT500, 435 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, Ill. 60611.