Strollerderby : adoptive parents

Census Woes: Defining Parenthood

Miriam Axel-Lute — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 15:03:00 GMT

It's census time again, folks, and you know what that means! Lots and lots of us trying to fit ourselves into a limited range of government-defined categories, whether on race, family structure, or goodness knows what else.

Let me preface this by saying that even though it's going to be a long time before my family is accurately captured by the census, I am actually more sympathetic to the challenges of the Census Bureau than many. I've had to use Census data a lot, and one of the main uses for it is to study changes over time. But if you keep changing the categories, you can't do that, at least not as well. Thus, when you add "mixed-race" as a category, and then you try to determine the shifting racial composition of an area, you can't really do it, because you don't know what the people identifying as mixed race previously identified as, etc. This doesn't mean I don't think the categories should change to reflect reality (and please someone, kill the whole "female-headed household" claptrap already!); the census should be about describing what is, not what someone thinks ought to be. But I understand why they are awfully feet-dragging about making big changes.

Such caveats aside, it does seem like some easy chances to get more useful data have been skipped this time through. Choosing to identify same-sex legally married couples as "unmarried partners" seems more lazy than anything—here's new information and we won't record it. It's not like this one would screw up the data anyway—you can always sort those couples separately using gender. Mombian, in a roundup of census issues for queer families, notes an important take-away: If you record yourself as "wife and wife" or "husband and husband" at least some hard-working researchers might be able to pull the info out later. So if it applies, by all means do it.

And then there's defining parenthood. What are you: biological parent, adoptive parent, or stepparent?

Those are your choices. How about non-bio parent, married to a bio parent, on the birth certificate so didn't have to adopt? (Could be a same-sex couple, could be a surrogate/donor kind of situation.) Or how about non-bio parent not able to adopt for some reason? (For example, laws against same-sex parents adoption or having more than two legal parents.) Will Cat Cora and her wife's data be thrown out if they both declare themselves bio parents?

If this applies to you, what will you put down?

Photo by takomabibelot.

More by this author:

More News About Missing Child Adam Herrman

Brett Singer — Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:15:00 GMT

Jeanne first told us about the bizarre case of the little boy who has been missing since 1999, but the story gets even stranger with some new details.

Let's start with this one: it turns out that the person who tipped off police about Adam's decade-old disappearance may have been the daughter of his adoptive parents. To clarify: Crystal Herrman, the biological daughter of Doug and Valerie Herrman, may have called the police and told them that Adam, whom Doug and Valerie adopted, was missing. Crystal emailed KSN.com, the Kansas NBC TV affiliate, saying the following:

"We started this, which was hard against our own parents as we were not adopted. But we want more than anything to find the truth, answers and justice…We pray every day our parents will come forward. Do the right thing not only for what they already put Adam through in the past, but to make it right for him now."

KSN says that that last sentence implies that Adam was being abused, although it doesn't appear to explicitly state that fact.

There's more: a woman described as "a former relative, who says she remains close to one of Valerie Herrman's sisters," told KSN that Valerie recently said, "They can dig up the whole state of Kansas, they'll never find a body." The Herrmann's attorney says that his clients are "worried" that they face murder charges, pointing out that there is no evidence of such a crime. He calls the Herrmans "good people," and claims the couple had no part in Adam's disappearance. The attorney has appeared on the Today Show, and also on local station KSN, stating that the Herrmans thought that Adam had gone to live with his biological father when he didn't come home after some time. Why they didn't call Adam's biological father and find out is a question that seems not to have been asked.

Lastly, Adam's biological father, Irvin Groeninger, gave an interview to KSN. He says that he "lost" Adam once and can't lose him again, and just wants to know what happened. Here's video of the interview, which also has clips of the attorney.

It's nasty stuff. I suppose I'll say that I hope they find out what happened soon, since it doesn't seem likely that this story has a happy ending.

Source: KSN.com

Parents Wait a Decade to Report Missing Child

They Say -- Kids Who Skip Breakfast and Hate Mom Have Sex Sooner

Toddler Injured in Xmas Tree Fight Between Mom and Grandma

Wife Set Husband's Genitals On Fire, Charged With Murder, Endangering Life

Parents Wait a Decade to Report Missing Child

JeanneSager — Tue, 06 Jan 2009 13:24:00 GMT

A child went missing in 1999, and his parents say they feel "very guilty" they didn't report him missing sooner. You know, sooner than the other day . . . ten years after the tween boy went missing.

Well, you know, feel guilty, act guilty . . . At the very least, these people must be guilty of being bad parents.

Adam Herrman disappeared from his adoptive parents, Doug and Valerie Herrman's trailer park in the town of Towanda, Kansas, in 1999. A foster child placed in the the Herrmans' care when he was two, Adam (born Irvin Groeninger III) was adopted by them. By the time he was eleven or twelve (somehow, police haven't been able to pin down an exact age - making me wonder if there's an exact day he was last seen), the Herrmans say he was running away frequently.

But when he up and disappeared again, they apparently decided he was with his biological parents . . . or homeless.

And still, they didn't report him missing.

According to a CNN report, a "person" made a report to the Sedgwick County Exploited and Missing Children's Unit that they were concerned about Adam Herrman. Police have since executed a search warrant at the family home, taking into possession their computer. They have gotten an answer, they said, to one of reporters' main questions . . . but they won't reveal which one.

Apparently it's not "what happened to Adam Herrman," because police said they don't know whether he's alive or dead. The Herrmans are not under arrest at this point, but their lawyer has said they "feel very guilty" and "rue" the fact that they didn't report him missing.

Of course, I can't help thinking of another missing Adam. Adam Walsh's parents went running to the cops because they loved their son and wanted them back, and their son is forever memorialized in the "Code Adam" alert for a missing child. Why wouldn't a set of parents (even those frustrated by a troubled runaway child) put out their own Code Adam for their Adam?

Usually, I try to stay away from the words "adoptive parents" because once an adoption is final, the adopting parents are simply parents in my book. But two people who let their pre-teen son go missing without reporting it to police? I'm not sure I can call them parents.

Image: CNN

Dad Gives Away 500 Lobsters For Cystic Fibrosis Awareness

Why Cops Should Let Casey Anthony Attend Caylee's Funeral

Son of America's Most Wanted Creator, Adam Walsh, Murder Solved

Man Says Drinking Breastmilk Cured His Cancer

Parents Must Give Adopted Son Back to Native American Mother

JeanneSager — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:26:00 GMT

He was born addicted to drugs to a woman who has already lost custody of her four other children for being unfit, but Heather and Clint Larson have to return their six-month-old boy to his birth mother.

They can't fight it - because they're not Native American.

The boy's birth mother is a member of the Leech Lake Band of the Ojibwe. The tribal court voted the birth mother deserves her baby; and they're citing the federal Indian Child Welfare Act to make it happen.

Normally I'd support a birth mother's decision to change her mind about signing adoption papers in the days after her child was born. It's why birth mothers are generally given a short period of time to make that decision - because an unborn child and a child you have carried into this world can have two very different affects on a parent. But this mother isn't your average confused teen mom. This is child number five, and she didn't keep her nose clean during her pregnancy - she gave birth to a baby boy addicted to drugs. More importantly, her tribe isn't fighting for her rights. They're fighting for the right to keep this child "Indian."

"The child is not the Larsons', and the Larsons are not Indian as far as I know and this is an Indian child," an attorney for the tribe told KUTV, a Salt Lake City, Utah news station last week.

What does that matter? Yes, the Native Americans were dealt a raw deal, and the people living on many of our reservations are suffering greatly. Yes, theirs is a culture that needs to be preserved, and the stories of the atrocities need to be shared with our children. But this is akin to arguing that white parents can't adopt a black child or vice versa. It is racism, plain and simple. A child needs good care from parents who love him, parents who can provide that care. The Larsons have proven to an adoption agency they can. The boy's mother has not.

This doesn't sound like it's truly in the best interests of the child - and I'm disturbed to hear that a judge in an American court says she has no power to overturn the tribal decision because, well, it's tribal.

Has the tribe considered talking to the Larsons about an open adoption, about ensuring that the boy is raised with an understanding of his heritage? Has the tribe offered to step in to provide the child with an education about his culture, provided the Larsons with the means to raise the little boy not only as an American but as a member of Ojibwe nation? The Larsons have kept the boy's name as "Talon," a name that sounds to me like it is cultural - a sign that they seem willing to provide the little boy with a sense of his place in the world.

There are immense problems on a number of reservations with teen pregnancy and poverty. How can tribes expect potential adoptive parents to step in to help with that, to rescue some of these babies born out of wedlock to mothers who can't care for them, if they always have to worry that they will have to give up their child because they "aren't Indian?" Is this a precedent the tribes want to set? Or do they simply not care?

Source: The Salt Lake Tribune

Image: KUTV

Parents Must Give Adopted Son Back: Another Side of the Story

Mom Gets Hate Mail for Ending Kids Thanksgiving Party

Man Forced to Pay Child Support for Another Man's Child

Sperm Donor's Teen Daughter Finds Him on Myspace

Husband's Genitals Lit on Fire For Cheating

Parents Upset: Transgender Kids Use Different School Bathrooms

"Mother" is Just Another Word: Family, Adoption and Language

Shannon LC Cate — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 17:00:00 GMT

Guest blogger at the New York Times blog, Motherlode, Jenni Levy, muses on the question of how to feel and what to think when she has to identify her child as "adopted" on a life insurance form:

"Most days I feel good about the way we are together. I have become my child’s mother without denying her heritage, without erasing her origins. So...why can’t I just check “adopted child” and move on?

I can’t choose one because it’s a false dichotomy. My daughter is adopted, and she is my child. Both of those are true. I don’t want to deny any part of our relationship, even if it is just to answer a bureaucrat’s unthinking question."

So when is it appropriate to make the distinction between someone's biological or adopted child, as such? We are always hearing about celebrities and their "adopted" children versus "just" their children, and the labeling is all the more glaring when multiple children come into one family both ways (for anyone out there who just came out of a ten-year coma, Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt for example).

I am a mother by adoption. In fact, there are so many labels qualifying my family I sometimes don't even know where to start. I am one of three mothers of my children, who have a birth mother and two adopted mothers (my partner and I) each. I am white and my daughters are African American. We have open adoptions, which means we extend our sense of family to include their first mothers and other family members.

Most of the time I don't care whether people say my kids were adopted or not. Checking boxes in situations like the one Levy discusses don't bother me much because I have come to have really low expectations of the respect my family receives from those outside its immediate embrace. The labels people assign to family don't usually fit us, and I stopped expecting them to so long ago I don't remember ever feeling differently. We are who we are to each other, call it what you will. Some of what we are to each other doesn't have a word. I say "my partner" for lack of a better term, though its business connotations are too stiff and distant to define the real substance of my marriage. My children's biological mothers are family to me but there's no adequate word in our culture for the woman who gave birth to the children I'm rearing. And I know three mothers is difficult for many people to comprehend, but for our family it is just our life. When we need to distinguish which mother is which, we use clumsy modifiers (none of which are quite right) to help minimize confusion.

(I once read a persusive ethics essay suggesting that only women who give birth should be called the "mothers" of their children -- even if the mother doesn't rear the child. Other parents -- male biological parents, adoptive parents of either gender -- should be refered to as "parents" but not "mothers." I thought that was a fair distinction. If that kind of language were to become common, I'd have less explaining to do about my own family relationships. Of course, this language shift will not happen any time soon, because of the emotional baggage our culture attaches to the word "mother.")

What does bother me is when people use the "adoptive" modifier to imply that there is something extraordinary about the parent. For some crazy reason, there is a strong myth in our culture that by adopting children, parents rescue them from some terrible fate. For example, upon meeting our first child for the first time, a family friend of my avowed atheist partner commended her on doing such a "Christian" thing by adopting. Another said "thank god she wasn't aborted!" as if our adopting her had anything to do with her mother's decision to carry her pregnancy to term. And then there's Saint Angelina, Patron of Adoption, whom we have all seen grace the covers of the magazines in the grocery line.

But ninety-nine percent of the time there is nothing even slightly rescue-related about adoption (including Angelina's). Frankly (and shamefully), my children's mothers did not have access to abortion should they have wanted it. And our children were hardly languishing in the foster system. They came home to us from the hospital as newborns. Furthermore, if I had not adopted my children, someone else would have. The waiting list for a child is nine months to two years long at our adoption agency. And those waiting lists exist everywhere the adoption of healthy infants is concerned (yes, Angelina had to wait, too). The stark truth is, the world has no shortage of people who want to adopt healthy infants -- and even toddlers -- whatever the race, whatever the country of origin. I am not a hero for adopting my children, I'm just a woman who wanted babies, like women who chart their ovulation and pee on sticks and give birth want babies.

This adoptive-parents-as-heros myth also seems to imply that loving a child not related by blood is more difficult than loving one that sprang from your own loins. This offends me on multiple levels, but most of all because it implies there is something less loveable about my children than about theoretical children that might have been born to me. In fact, my children are, of course, the most loveable children on the planet Earth, and I am lucky beyond lucky that I get to be their parent.

But after five years of reading and writing about adoption, and nearly four years of parenting by adoption, I have all but given up on expecting most people to understand that my family is a family is a family, even with its unusual structure, members without titles or legal ties and its obvious, visible differences from the "norm." I now divide the world into three categories: people who "get" adoption; people who don't get adoption but would like to learn; people who really have no interest in getting it at all. I try only to bother with those who get it or those interested in learning.

You can't teach a form full of boxes much of anything so I will blithely check "adopted child," roll my eyes, and get on with my day.

Biological Father of Madonna's Adopted Son Very Concerned

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 20:30:00 GMT

Yohana Banda, the biological father of Madonna’s adopted son David, is very worried about the boy's happiness. Although Banda and his second wife live simply in a thatched hut in Malawi, he thinks that three-year-old David may be happier living with him than with the most famous woman in the world.

Banda put David up for adoption after his first wife, David’s biological mother, died from complications in childbirth. He hoped that David would have a better life in the U.S., but, he says, “Now I see him in a big bewildering crowd in the street with people pushing and shoving, and many cameras around, and without a mother and father to hold his hand. I’m feeling bad for him.”

Madonna’s divorce from Guy Ritchie has strengthened Banda’s concerns about David’s welfare. “This is a new and terrible thing to happen to him. I am too upset to think clearly,” Banda said.

Although this is clearly a unique case, Banda's concern raises interesting questions about the rights of biological parents to be involved in their children’s lives after adoption. Naturally, Banda cannot know what David’s private family life is really like without personal contact from Madonna. Do you think Madonna has an obligation to reassure Banda of David’s happiness, or are her family’s decisions none of his business?

Photo: Celebpick's Weblog

Madonna's Malawi/UNICEF Fundraiser Gets Criticized

Madeline Holler — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 22:57:00 GMT

Critics say Madonna's recent fundraiser at the U.N. was actually a Gucci store opening attention-getter in disguise and also an indirect promotion of Hollywood's favorite mystic religious center. These same critics think the U.N. should never have allowed the event, which raised more than $3.7 million for relief efforts in Malawi, the country of origin for Madonna's adopted son, and UNICEF.

Yes, but she brought Lourdes. We never see Lourdes! Doesn't that count for something?

From UPI:

The Guardian said Internet bloggers and some mainstream media outlets have blasted the United Nations, claiming the event -- which was presided over by pop star Madonna -- was used to drum up publicity for the Kabbalah Centre and a new Gucci shop in New York.

They say it was inappropriate because half of the funds would go to Raising Malawi, an organization run by the Kabbalah Centre. The rest of the money was donated to UNICEF (weren't they critical of Madonna's adoption, by the way?)

Still, where's the critics' sense of fun? The turnout was all star and loaded with celeb moms and dads. Jezebel's got pics of the best and worst dressed and pics of Gwen Stefani and a very preg. Jennifer Lopez.

Photo: via Jezebel

Ranch for Adopted Kids Gone Wild

Madeline Holler — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 23:02:00 GMT

This is one of those things where you're happy that there are people out there doing good things so that you can live in complete and comfortable oblivion about the problem they live with and deal with and try to make better on a daily basis: a ranch for adopted children whose desperate families cannot handle them.

It turns out, a statistically small but growing number of adoptive families -- particularly those who adopted internationally -- are pushed to the point of wanting to give up their adopted child. They realize that their adoption agencies glossed over or falsified their child's history of abuse or living conditions, all of which wind up contributing to abusive and dangerous behaviors the children start exhibiting in their tweens and teens.

Which is how Ranch for Kids in rural Montana got started and also why it's therapy of hard ranch work and responsibility will likely be needed for years to come.

The Ranch isn't a first stop for adoptive families whose children are going through hard times, of course.

The LA Times:

Most had already logged countless hours in psychiatric units, wilderness programs and residential treatment centers, searching for answers to their disturbing behaviors. The goal is that, through intense intervention and structure, their conduct will improve enough that they can go home.

But some will never return, moving on to new families. They are part of an expanding phenomenon known as adoption disruption -- the official term for parents attempting to return their adoptive children.

It's heartbreaking, as is this story in Newsweek a while back of an American adoptive mother who is in prison for beating her adopted daughter to death. Also a tragedy, also the result of a lack of real information about her girl's early childhood history, which may have been helpful in understanding and treating her subsequent behaviors.

The ranch, started by an American woman who lived and worked in Russia, where she also adopted her daughter, has a pretty good sucess rate. Of the 150 kids that have gone through the program, which is not cheap, only six have gotten the boot (all, incidentally, within the last year). One third of the kids go back home after their stay at the ranch, another third, usually teens, go on to Job Corps, a government program that trains them for work. The last third, sadly, wind up being relinquished by their parents.

Sometimes, the task of telling a child he or she will be joining a new family falls to Bill Sutley, an electrical engineer by training. "I just say: 'This is not your fault. You have a screwed-up brain.' And then I do my best to explain why the current situation isn't working."

Which is when yet another group is called on: A Child's Waiting in Akron, Ohio -- one of the few adoption agencies that works with youth they did not originally place.

The kids are rated according to levels of difficulty and then the search for a new family or living situation is begun.

Truly, truly sad.

Does anybody have any experience with this or adoption disruption?

Photo: rainbowkids.com

Fat Guy Gets Go-Ahead to Adopt

Madeline Holler — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 21:27:00 GMT

A super overweight guy who was convinced that a judge denied him custody of his cousin’s son because of the man’s size has once again regained custody of the little boy.

Now the wheels are in motion for him and his wife to finalize adoption of the now 8-month-old, who the couple began caring for when he was 1-week-old.

The judge denies that the man’s weight was ever a factor in denying custody. At the beginning of the battle, he weight 550 pounds. Now, after a Dallas doctor offered free gastic by-pass, he’s 200 pounds lighter.

Instead, the judge says the man improperly moved the boy across state lines. He was born in Texas, but the family now lives in Missouri, where the case is being adjudicated.

The overweight man has been fighting to regain custody of the boy since this summer, when he was placed with another (skinnier?) family, also interested in permanent adoption.

I’m happy for the big guy and the little boy. Weight shouldn’t be a factor when deciding where to place children, particularly in places like Missouri! Jesus! In Missouri, food is love! So I’m glad this is being resolved. But now I’m sad for that other family.

Wanna Adopt a Baby? Try MySpace.

Kelly Mills — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 12:33:00 GMT

When you are looking to adopt a child, how do you generate the kind of buzz you need without major label support? Set up a MySpace page, of course! This was the reasoning of one Michigan couple, who decided to turn to the site as a method of finding a little girl to add to their family. The couple opted for MySpace in part because of the high cost of adoptions and the length of the adoption process, which can take two years.

I can already hear the story they’ll tell their adopted child: “When your birth mom saw that our favorite band was Arcade Fire too, she knew we’d provide the best home for you.”

The couple posted a message to a “mother-to-be” and go on to say, “We cannot imagine how difficult making an adoption plan for you and your child must be… Thank you for including our profile in your search for the right family to raise your baby.” They have yet to receive any baby offers, but they have generated quite a response: more than 17,000 messages of encouragement since Monday. Plus they now have a ton of friends on their profile. How come the only friend offers I ever get are from freaks and spammers? But I bet they would have had more luck finding a baby on craigslist.

Actually, since the site is so popular with the kids these days, maybe it’s not such a bad way to find a teen mom looking for a home for her baby. Remember the old days, when you had to hang out at the mall to find teen moms? But a word of caution: if the page gets hacked, they might end up with 200 strange babies at their house…

Brad to Angie: Waaaaait Just a Minute Here, Missy!

Jessica Ashley (Sassafrass) — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 21:34:00 GMT

While Angelina Jolie is busy scouring binders and pages of potential adoptees on the internet (is that how she does it?), Brad Pitt just wants to kick back and enjoy the kiddos. A report out this week spills that Brad would like to hold off on having or adopting more kids so the couple can invest time and energy into children Maddox, Pax, Zahara and Shiloh.

It seems that Brangelina both want to have more children in the future but Brad has asked for a breather before welcoming any new additions to the family, citing as his reasons: "wanting to get his body back" and "possibly going somewhere other than Appleby's for dinner once in a while."

Of course, as soon as Angelina fires off a "my husband just doesn't get it" email to Mia Farrow, the whole "let's be happy with the kids we have" thing will surely be quickly canned.

Parents Love Bio Kids Best, According to Rebecca Walker

Rachael Brownell (Redsy) — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 15:47:00 GMT

Rebecca Walker, 37, the daughter of Pulitzer Prize winning author Alice Walker ("Color Purple"), is no stranger to controversy. In her memoir, "Baby Love: Choosing Motherhood After a Lifetime of Ambivalence," she states that "...the love you have for your non-biological child isn't the same as the love you have for your own flesh and blood." Cue the uproar.

Most people would agree that attachment to a child is a function of a person's ability to love, rather than the status of that child in relation to the parent, but Ms. Walker clearly is not most people.

Read PunditMom's loving descriptions of her daughter and tell me her love isn't the same or deeper than the feelings shared between biological parents and their kids. But the real problem with these remarks is the notion that quantifying types and qualities of love for children is a necessary exercise. Ms. Walker does offer a clarification on her blog that she didn't intend to offend anyone, but perhaps it's too little too late.

[via The Washington Post]

Angie Baby, Don't Break Our Hearts OR Vietnamese Adoption Laws

Rachael Brownell (Redsy) — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 18:57:00 GMT

The prettiest adoptive parents since the beginning of time are considering expanding their fair family even further. But adopting a Vietnamese baby is starting to make Brad and Angelina seem more like Madonna than Mother Theresa.

According to recent reports, Angelina Jolie is filing to adopt a Vietnamese baby claiming to be "single" even though she lives with and shares custody of her other children with Brad Pitt, a clear contravention of Vietnamese adoption law.

This certainly isn't the first time celebrities have bent adoption rules, and unfortunately it probably won't be the last. Adoption appears to be the new in thing for Hollywood couples and I look forward to seeing if this new rage takes off. Meanwhile, if the rest of the world continues to despair of the arrogance and thoughtlessness of famous Americans who deign to adopt, while ignoring the laws of the countries of their adoptive children, who can blame them?

Strollerderby : adoptive parents

Census Woes: Defining Parenthood

More News About Missing Child Adam Herrman

They Say: Smoking While Pregnant Makes Kids Aggressive

Parents Wait a Decade to Report Missing Child

They Say -- Kids Who Skip Breakfast and Hate Mom Have Sex Sooner

Toddler Injured in Xmas Tree Fight Between Mom and Grandma

Wife Set Husband's Genitals On Fire, Charged With Murder, Endangering Life

Parents Wait a Decade to Report Missing Child

Kid Woos Prospective Foster Parents With Letters

Dad Gives Away 500 Lobsters For Cystic Fibrosis Awareness

Why Cops Should Let Casey Anthony Attend Caylee's Funeral

Son of America's Most Wanted Creator, Adam Walsh, Murder Solved

Man Says Drinking Breastmilk Cured His Cancer

Parents Must Give Adopted Son Back to Native American Mother

Mom Gets Hate Mail for Ending Kids Thanksgiving Party

Man Forced to Pay Child Support for Another Man's Child

Sperm Donor's Teen Daughter Finds Him on Myspace

Husband's Genitals Lit on Fire For Cheating

Parents Upset: Transgender Kids Use Different School Bathrooms

"Mother" is Just Another Word: Family, Adoption and Language

Biological Father of Madonna's Adopted Son Very Concerned

Will Madonna Have a Baby With A-Rod?

Madonna's Malawi/UNICEF Fundraiser Gets Criticized

Ranch for Adopted Kids Gone Wild

Fat Guy Gets Go-Ahead to Adopt

Wanna Adopt a Baby? Try MySpace.

Brad to Angie: Waaaaait Just a Minute Here, Missy!

Parents Love Bio Kids Best, According to Rebecca Walker

Angie Baby, Don't Break Our Hearts OR Vietnamese Adoption Laws