Tuesday, November 25, 2014
Kids' Rights Adoption Movie Review
Olga and Michael are a dating couple who wish to adopt a
child. They hope to film their adoption process, and also fear that they will
not be approved; after all, when Elton John and his partner attempted to adopt
a child from the Ukraine, they were denied. Olga and Michael interview actual
and hopeful adoptive parents, governmental officials, and adoption
professionals in an attempt to understand what they call “the business of
adoption.”
How Does This Connect
to Adoption and Foster Care?
Kids’ Rights explores some of the fears and feelings that prospective
adoptive parents feel. The documentary questions some of the adoption process
as well as some of the decisions made by adoption professionals.
Strong Points
Olga and Michael interview a very wide range of people with
a variety of connections to adoption. I was particularly impressed that they included David Pelzer, the author of "A Child Called 'It'."
Olga allows herself to have her
preconceptions challenged and changed.
Challenges
Sometimes, the filmmakers come across as entitled. They
assert that people have the unalienable right to have children, and then try
to apply this to adoption. They question the right of an adoption agency to deny
an applicant for adoption. The film argues that it is unfair that prospective
adoptive parents have to meet criteria to adopt, while biologically “you just
need to have sex,” and suggests that it is wrong that children are in
orphanages while people who want to parent are turned away. They lament that
adoption agencies “look for flaws rather than for strengths.” They do interview
one set of adoptive parents who affirm the value of the home study process, but often seem unconvinced themselves. The film does capture the frustration and pain
felt by people in the adoption process, but their focus seems to shift between
meeting children’s needs and meeting adults’ needs.
The documentary feels one-sided at times. Elton John’s application for adoption was
denied, and the filmmakers argue that it is “absolute madness” because the
family would have adopted the child “and even his older brother,” and because
Elton John has done much to help the AIDS crisis in Ukraine. My impression from
the film is that the denial was due to Ukrainian governmental prejudice against
same-sex couples; this did play a part – Ukrainian law only allows adoption to
married couples and does not recognize same-sex couples as married. Some other facts are also presented, but do
not appear to be weighed in the film’s condemnation of the denial: Ukrainian
law stipulates a maximum age gap (45 years) between adopter and adoptee, which
was not met in this case. Also, the children in question were ultimately released
from the orphanage to the care of their grandmother. The film seems dismissive
of the birth family, unsympathetically relating news of the death of the
children’s mother, and suggesting that the grandmother will not be able to meet
the financial burden caused by the children’s medical needs.
Overall, my impression of the film is mixed. The film
condemns a range of adoption practices, but in the end, Michael and Olga decide
that they should face their fears and pursue adoption. I value their heart for
children, and I empathize with the pain, fear, and frustration that people feel
as they navigate the adoption process. It is painful to perceive unethical behavior
in adoption agencies. And yet, not everything that Michael and Olga question is
bad. I work in foster care adoption, and the children that I serve have often
experienced great loss and trauma. It seems safe to say that most children who
are adopted have experienced at least some significant loss. Adoptive parenting
requires some skills and conversations and considerations that are not required
in other situations, and it’s because of this that there is a need for adoptive
families to have extra training and evaluation. Adoption is different than
conceiving a child biologically, and although it may seem and feel unfair, it does call for some heightened requirements. And, as the film points out, some of the
requirements themselves are unfair and unnecessary. But not all of them.
Weak Points
The film feels inflammatory and insensitive at times. When
explaining that only handicapped children can be adopted from one country, a
graphic depicts a healthy child sitting locked in a bird cage, while a child in
a wheelchair gleefully breaks free. The film’s narration also uses terms like “the
war against kids,” which makes it easy to question its objectivity. The
filmmakers question how a parent could allow themselves to give up their child.
Recommendations
I felt the film was largely but not totally one-sided – but I’m
reviewing it from the perspective of an adoption professional. The tone of the film seems to soften towards the end, and that the frustrations expressed earlier in the film are real, common, and understandable. I would be
interested to know how it comes across to an audience of folks with other
connections to adoption. If you watch it, I’d encourage you to weigh it
carefully. Which points do you agree with? Which do you disagree with?
Questions for
Discussion
How do reproductive rights and reproductive desires differ
from each other? How does each of these interplay with adoptee rights?
Which parts of the adoption process were the most
frustrating?
Should adoptive parents be required to submit to a criminal
record screening before being approved for adoption? How about interviews with
a social worker? Should training be required?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment