Home

Creating and Helping Jewish Families

Wed, 2008-05-21 17:52 - Kerry

From Hebrew Free Loan Society 

The Hebrew Free Loan Society’s (HFLS) Harry and Jeanette Weinberg Adoption Loan program assists Jewish couples and singles with the high cost of adoption-related expenses.  Since 2000, HFLS has made 32 adoption loans, totaling more than $325,000, to help adoptive parents handle the cost. It is a unique financial resource for those who have sufficient income to support a child but are unable to afford adoption expenses.

HFLS also provides loan assistance to single-parent families, a population with high levels of need, and large families of modest means.

David and Michelle Slotnick desperately wanted a child. After five years of trying to conceive, the couple was anxious to begin the adoption process. They had spent most of their $25,000 in savings on infertility treatment, and they could not afford the $20,000 to $30,000 in fees that are associated with adoption.

The Slotnicks were able to obtain a $15,000 interest-free loan from HFLS for most of the adoption expenses. Less than a year later, eleven-month-old Sierra Vanessa joined their family.  "David and I are so in love with Sierra. She’s fulfilled our dreams of having a family," Michelle told Jewish Week.

A year later, HFLS provided a second loan so the couple could adopt Sierra’s cousin, whom they named Miranda. 

 

Comments

Wed, 2008-05-21 17:56 — Kerry

Loaning, with Religious Interest?

Now, are these adopted children born from Jewish mothers, making them full-blooded members of their adoptive family religious culture, or does the child's birth-religion become as changable as a name on an adoptee's birth-certificate?

Wed, 2008-05-21 19:31 — Niels

religious continuity

When it comes to domestic adoption, the various religiously inspired agencies, usually place children within families of the same religion the natural parents have. That is true for the various Catholic Charities, the many Lutheran Social (or Family) Services, the offices of LDS family services and it's true for the Jewish Family Services.

When talking international adoption things become less cut and dry. Most of these religious agencies do run international programs and certainly not only in countries where the agencies religion is prominent.

Sat, 2008-05-24 10:02 — Kerry

Separate: CHILD ADOPTION ACROSS RELIGIOUS LINES

I found the following which struck me as being odd because it seems the laws of a church ultimately have more power than the laws of a state.  If that's the case, given how corrupt some religious organizations can be, I fear every mother and child is doomed to the power of man and money.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON RESOLUTIONS

44th General Assembly
April 1957
Toronto, Ontario

For many reasons, the desire of Americans of all faiths to adopt children has increased significantly in recent years. Inevitably, this urge has involved problems of legal jurisdiction and, in many communities, of inter-religious controversy. At least one religious group has maintained, as a principle of faith, that children born of a mother professing a given faith must be reared in that faith by adoptive parents of the same faith, even though the natural mother may consent to an adoption across religious lines. Legislation has been adopted in many states to apply this principle in judicial proceedings. Many inquiries have been directed to the Union of American Hebrew Congregations with respect to our attitude toward child adoption across religious denominational lines. We herewith declare the following principles:  ACTION: The resolution was referred to the Board of Trustees for further study.

  • We are opposed to any legislation which subordinates the temporal welfare of the adoptive child to any other considerations in determining the placement or custody of the child.
  • We deny the moral right and the legal power of any branch of the government to determine a child's religious life. We consider an assumption of such power to be a violation of the Constitution of the United States. In addition, the assumption of such authority by government denies to a mother the right of free choice in giving up her child for adoption. Such a denial is both an infringement of the fundamental civil liberties of the mother and in impairment of the welfare of the child.
  • We are persuaded, as a result of experience in those states which have statutory limitations upon adoption across religious lines, that such legislation quite aside from the constitutional difficulties already noted, inevitably leads to unfortunate inter-religious tension and conflict.  

http://urj.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=7583&pge_prg_id=29601&pge_id=4590

Does this mean intra-religious practices (like mixed-faith marriages) are "unacceptable" (or unsupported) because it takes members away from the church ("weakening the flock") , but intracountry adoptions (mixing foreign family blood, names and cultural heritage) ARE acceptable because it's seen as a moral human transfer made by a religious mother?  Reads like the ultimate sacrifice to me... something lots of cults like to do in the woods!

What if a mother refuses to name a specific religion?  Will her child go up for grabs (tossed-up like a wedding bouquet), and fall into the hands of the fastest mover and taker?

I think this "religious rights" puts child-placement in very dangerous hands, especially if it's based on religious-law, and not universal child safety.  God knows, some religious groups can be far more dangerous than we care to believe they already are!

I'm sure America, at least, will soon have reason not to adopt outside it's borders... after all, imagine just how many unborn babies live in IVF cryotanks in this country!  For more, read about the morality behind Snowflake Adoptions:  http://atheism.about.com/b/2005/06/07/bush-supports-religious-discrimination-in-adoption.htm

Sat, 2008-05-24 11:52 — Lulu

Dodgy religious practices

Embryo adoptions for Christians only - dodgy dogdy.

But that is not all. International adoptions are often facilitated by religious ministries that run 'orphanages' in countries where most people have other religions than them. These Ministries faciliate only families who adhere to their religion, which of course they cannot find in the country itself, hence they justify sending children abroad.

Depriving the child from his/her culture, language and religion.  And last but certainly not least: from his (extended) family.

Sat, 2008-05-24 13:06 — Kerry

Investing one's future

Wow... we must be on the same wave-length, because as you were posting this reply, I was writing about the cost religious and cultural differences bring the classroom, affecting each and every tax-paying parent!   [http://poundpuplegacy.org/node/19006]

There should be no short-cuts made in safe child placement, yet it seems religious motives win the race on who has the right-of-choice.

Sat, 2008-05-24 15:16 — Niels

Here is an excerpt from

Here is an excerpt from mormonwiki.com, dealing with adoption

In 1994 the First Presidency of the Church wrote a letter that was read to its members concerning adoption, and babies conceived out of wedlock, part of it said,

Priesthood and auxiliary leaders are again encouraged to renew their efforts to teach ward and stake members the importance of living chaste and virtuous lives. We note with alarm the continued decline of moral values in society and the resultant number of children being reared by unwed parents.... Every effort should be made in helping those who conceive out of wedlock to establish an eternal family relationship. When the unwed parents are unable or unwilling to marry, they should be encouraged to place the child for adoption, preferably through LDS Social Services.... Unwed parents who do not marry should not be counseled to keep the infant as a condition of repentance or out of an obligation to care for one’s own.... When deciding to place the baby for adoption, the best interests of the child should be the paramount consideration (First Presidency Letter, 1 Feb. 1994).

Marriage is usually considered to be the best option if it is possible. Studies show that if the parents are married before the birth of the child, there is a greater likelihood that the parents will be better off financially, be able to provide a more stable home, and have a better chance of having a healthy marriage. This does not seem to be true for those who are married after the child is born.

When marriage is not possible or is inadvisable, placing the baby up for adoption through Church adoption services is often the next best option. Adoptive parents are often better-off economically, better educated, are more mature, and can provide the child with a stable family life that includes both a mother and a father. LDS Family Services screens adoptive parents and makes sure they are worthy according to Church standards.

It's probably not all that surprising the top of the LDS church demonstrate this "within the box thinking". As such they of course claim the panaceatic properties of marriage, in which they of course bring in misinformation. The studies that supposedly show the virtues of marriage, don't stratify the samples according to reason of unmarriedness. I know of many people who don't believe in marriage, but do believe in a stable family life for their children. It would seriously surprise me if these couples would score any less than couples that are married. Within the sample of unmarried couples having children, there probably are quite a few "problem cases", which give the studies a positive bias towards marriage, which intrisically has nothing to do with the actual wedlock, but are an indicator of other social issues.

Even more troubling are the two phrases "Unwed parents who do not marry should not be counseled to keep the infant as a condition of repentance or out of an obligation to care for one’s own" and "When deciding to place the baby for adoption, the best interests of the child should be the paramount consideration". In my opinion those two statements can be mutually exclusive. It can be in the child's best interest to counsel unwed parents who do not marry. It can be in the child's best interest to grow up in the environment it is born in, irrespective of marital status.

Finally, though the excerpt does not mention what Church standards are, it is pretty obvious what constitutes those, looking at the line preceding it: wealth, education and maturity. Are these really the most important factors for good parenting. Are the less wealthy, less educated and less mature, worse at raising children? I think there are more important factors, acceptance, support, patience, empathy, values that can't be learned in school, can't be acquired in a shop and don't necessarily come with age.

Sat, 2008-05-24 15:25 — Niels

Almost 40 years ago

While checking up on religion and adoption, I came accross the following article from Time magazine. It is not recent, in fact it dates back to 1970, but for a historical insight I think it is valuable.

Can Atheists Be Parents?

After six years of childless marriage, John and Cynthia Burke of Newark decided to adopt a baby boy through a state agency. Since the Burkes were young, scandal-free and solvent, they had no trouble with the New Jersey Bureau of Children's Services—until investigators came to the line on the application that asked for the couple's religious affiliation.

John Burke, an atheist, and his wife, a pantheist, had left the line blank. As a result, the bureau denied the Burkes' application. After the couple began court action, however, the bureau changed its regulations, and the couple was able to adopt a baby boy from the Children's Aid and Adoption Society in East Orange.

Last year the Burkes presented their adopted son, David, now 31, with a baby sister, Eleanor Katherine, now 17 months, whom they acquired from the same East Orange agency. Since the agency endorsed the adoption, the required final approval by a judge was expected to be pro forma. Instead, Superior Court Judge William Camarata raised the religious issue.

Inestimable Privilege. In an extraordinary decision, Judge Camarata denied the Burkes' right to the child because of their lack of belief in a Supreme Being. Despite the Burkes' "high moral and ethical standards," he said, the New Jersey state constitution declares that "no person shall be deprived of the inestimable privilege of worshiping Almighty God in a manner agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience." Despite Eleanor Katherine's tender years, he continued, "the child should have the freedom to worship as she sees fit, and not be influenced by prospective parents who do not believe in a Supreme Being."

The Burkes are now living in Carterville, Ill., near Southern Illinois University, where John Burke has worked for the past year as a speech pathologist. Nevertheless, Judge Camarata ordered the parents to send David's sister back to the New Jersey adoption agency. Two weeks ago, aided by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Burkes appealed directly to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case. If they fail in their appeal, Eleanor Katherine may have to leave the only family she has ever known and await adoption by another couple whose religious convictions satisfy the State of New Jersey.

Sun, 2008-05-25 17:16 — kimette

Send the child with a Bible!

I was sent to USA with three books written in English and Korea: a book of Korean songs for kids, a korean-english dictionary and ......... a Bible. 

I should consider myself lucky to have received these three books from Holt. A 10 year-old girl who was sent to US right before me didn't know how to read. So  an employee said to her: "since you don't read Korean, I will give you only the dictionary and the book of songs".

In my opinion,  it was a the best decision because even if I was catholic, the book which has been the most useful to me was the dictionary and the one that I liked the most was the children's book.  Her employer's opinion was completely different. When she learned that a child was sent to US without the Bible, she was very angry. She scolded the employee responsible of this "mistake" for an hour and to her: "The children's book is not necessary, the dictionary is not necessary but the Bible, yes, it is necessary"

Based on my personal experience of adoption, I feel like I was a tool for evenlization.  Send the child with a Bible! Evangelize the world!

Molly Holt herself told me that at the  begining, they wanted to send the children only to Christian families. Since there were not enough of Christian families adopting , they started to sending them to non christian families. Children from my orphanage were sent to Catholic families  as they promised to the nuns... but they prayed that each child meet their Lord.