Americans for Open Records

A public service information page sponsored by Americans For Open Records (AmFOR)

ADOPTION SCHEMES THAT VIOLATE
SEPARATION OF CHURCH & STATE

Separation of Church and State is a basic doctrine of American government. It is also a central issue in adoption because the adoption industry is chiefly driven by Christian adoption agencies and their chief lobbyist, National Council for Adoption, which was given millions of dollars by our federal government to promote adoption (plus $1-billion over 4 years).

1. The Christian Right, Catholics & Adoption

Background

The very foundation of the Roman Catholic Church and Christiandom, based on Jesus being a single, celibate Messiah, would crumble if it was proven that the Church falsely labeled Mary Magdalene a "prostitute," rather than acknowledge her true role in Jesus' life. Yet in Sophian legends, Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a son, "Michael" ("One Who is Like Unto God"), while the recent explosive fiction novel, "The Da Vinci Code," drawing upon legends and actual documents, proclaims that Jesus and Mary Magdalene had a hidden daughter, Sarah. This, the book says, is true secret of the Holy Grail--- that Jesus' marriage to Mary Magdalene produced a child, a little girl, who was born after his crucifixion, had to be hidden and grew up in the South of France. According to the legend, Sarah bore children of her own, carrying on her father's bloodline. It flowed through generations, eventually reaching the French royal family, and from there, the rest of the world.

There is evidence in The New Testament, as well as in the Gnostic Gospel of St. Thomas, that Jesus and Mary Magdalene conceived a child through their sacred marriage. And recent non-fiction books, including "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" and "Bloodline of the Holy Grail: The True Lineage of Jesus," tell us about the Sangreal (Holy Grail) and true lineage of Jesus, down through the royal bloodline that followed in the House of Stewart. There is, of course, no birth certificate, nor entry in some ancient ledger telling of Sarah's arrival nor who her parents might have been. But then, neither do six generations of American Catholic adoptees know who their parents are, having had their true baptismal birth certificates falsified by the Catholic Church.

Throughout history, the Catholic Church has been a primary instigator of family separations. The Church had several reasons for casting the "unwed mother" as a "sinner," and her child as a "bastard child" and for allowing mother and child to be magically "redeemed" via the lies of secret adoption. Adoption was and still is the Church's "tool" for Christianizing the world to increase its own power and control.

The Church accomplishes this goal by placing children with Christian adoptive parents who are required to raise the child according to the Church's beliefs, and by falsifying the child's baptismal birth record to reflect that the adopters are the parents at date of birth, just as the State issues falsfied birth certificates.

The Church's Henchmen

In the Catholic Church's scheme to Christianize the world, the Church uses its domestic adoption agencies, such as Catholic Charities and Catholic Social Services, and foreign adoption agencies, such as Holt International, to go a step further than other denominational adoption agencies in facilitating family separations. The Catholic Church has frequently claimed that living parents are dead or unknown, and that children are orphans when they have living parents -- sometimes for the sole purpose of profiting from the children's slave labor, as in the following examples:

Example #1: Falsified Original Records

To support these lies, the Catholic Church has often falsified original, pre-adoption birth records of both foreign and U.S. adoptees - which today's adult adoptees are discovering when they attempt to search out their families. Holt International was notorious for lying not only about the child orphanhood, but also about the child's age (for example, in Korean adoptions) so the child would be more appealing and "adoptable" to American adopters.

MIRA BATTEY of Cathedral City, California, is one of tens of thousands of Korean adoptees in the U.S. who have learned that not is her alleged birth name, Mi Ra Ahn, a made up name and that names such as "Ahn" and "Kim" were given to many Korean adoptees, but also that she is probably a year older than her record indicates -- and that her mother did not actually abandon her -- and that her adopters signed a contract agreing to raise her to according to Catholic belief in Jesus.

Example #2: Falsified Death Certificates

PATTI LEMMER searched for her 2 daughters for 40 yars, eventually finding them with the help of the UNSOLVED MYSTERIES television show. Catholic Charities of Indiana forced her to sign their "death certificates" as well as relinquiahments for adoption. The phony death certificates enabled Catholic Charities to hide any paper trail so that Patti and her daughters could not find each other, even as the system legally permits today. Patti's search and reunion story is at http://www.aborn.org/Amani.html

Example #3: Australia's 10,000 Migrant Children

On February 3, 2002, CBS-60 Minutes re-ran the segment about the Church's scheme with regard to 10,000 MIGRANT CHILDREN, allgegedly "orphans," sent by the Catholic Church from Britain to Australia allegedly to be "adopted" there. Instead of adoption, The Christian Brothers priests in Australia used the kids as slave labor to build their mission, as part of a scheme to popluate mostly Aboriginal Australia with "White Christians." The priests sexually abused the kids -- a fact which was generally known back in England, as was the overall scheme -- all the way up to the Queen.

The clencher is that the kids were not orphans and that they were told their mothers were dead-- and the mothers never gave permission for their children to be relinquished for adoption. The mothers were told it was "too late" to reclaim their kids when they went to get them back from foster care. The mothers were told they had been "adopted" in Britain. The mothers were never told that their children had been sent to Australia. Only one in 10,000 was adopted.

MARGARET HUMPHREYS of the Children's Migrant Trust began finding the mothers alive. England won't acknowledge or apologize about what was done and only recently has begun to help help fund reuniting the adult children with their mothers, most of whom have probably died off by now or soon will. Margaret Humphrey's book on this scandal, Empty Cradles, is available from Amazon.com

Example #4: Duplessis "Orphans"

It was called North Americas largest case of institutional abuse a lawsuit brought by adults who, as children in the 1940s to 1960s, were sexually abused, beaten and subjected to horrors such as electroshock therapy and lobotomies, while in care of priests and nuns of the Catholic Church of Quebec. The atrocities were hidden by the Church who falsely labeled over 5,000 children as "mentally deficient" and renamed the orphanages as health care facilities in order to receive federal subsidies. Most of the "orphans" had been taken from unwed mothers who were promised a better life for their children. In the 2001 settlement, the claimants received an increased offer from the Quebec government for a flat payment of $10,000 per person, plus an additional $1,000 for each year of wrongful confinement to a mental institution. The offer amounted to approximately $25,000 per orphan, however it was limited to each of 1,100 (of 3,000) surviving orphans the government had labeled as mentally deficient, but did not include any compensation for victims of sexual or other abuse. Faced with few choices, the offer was accepted by those applicable while the remainder received nothing. Many believe that justice was not done and criminal wrongdoing was allowed to go unpunished. Sources: CBC Archives, and http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/d/du/duplessis_orphans.htm

Example #5: Disclosure, Discretion & Discrimination Today

Today, adults adoptees within the same state are being treated diffreently by Catholic Social Services when they apply for information about themselves from their records. One example is that of GREGORY MOX, an adult adoptee incarcerated in Michigan, who applied to Catholic Services of Macomb, Michigan, enclosing the required $60 fee donated by AmFOR, for his "non-identifying" social and medical background information from his adoption file. Sister Joan Ales returned AmFOR's check and has repeatedly refused to provide Greg with any non-ID as the law requires, nor has she even responded to him directly "within 63 days" of his request, as Michigan law requites, nor since. Michigan law also permits ALL adoptees, including incarcerated adoptees to be registered on Michigan's State Mutual Consent Registry and to have a court appointed "confidential intermediary" search for and contact the adoptee's mother. Greg is neither registered on the State registry nor has he been permitted a court appointed intermediary. Sister Ales insists on being that intermdairy (for $250 fee), a conflict of interest to say the least, considering she has already refused him his non-identifying information and, under Michigan law, would be entitled to retain the $250 without provision of a single picee of information.

But Catholic Services of Wayne County, Michigan, readily provided extensive non-identifying information, so far, to incarcerated adoptee, BRYAN ANDREW HARR -- and even waived the $60 fee due to his indigent prisoner status. The Court in Macomb County DENIED Greg Mox's request to waive fes for the same reason.

The clencher is that both of these adoptees were convisted of the same crime of murder. Greg killed his adoptive parents, and the nun (director) of Catholic Services of Macomb, and Macomb County Court expressed her bias against prisoners in general---while Bryan killed an unrelated stranger, which did not prejudice Catholic Services and the Court in Wayne County.

Greg's and Bryan's stories, which reveal that their Catholic Social Services adoptions were largely responsible for their behaviors that led to the murders, are detailed in Chosen Children.

Activism

Activists groups in the United States, such as AmFOR and ORIGINS-USA: An Inquiry, formerly termed "that small noisey group" by the Christian adoption industry's lobby, National Council for Adoption (NCFA), have gained respect for their influence by reporting such adoption abuses to the United Nations Rights of the Child conference, for their "Sale of Children" report. And with every new search and reunion, more and more cases of violation of the doctrine of Separation of Church and State, as well as adoption abuses and scandals by the Catholic Church are coming to light. You can support such activism by adding your name and comment to our petition.

2. Protestants & Adoption

Sexual Molestation of [Adopted] Children by Various Protestant Clergy http://reformation.com/CSA/variousabuse.html

Ocala, FL. The 62-year-old pastor's name has been withheld in consideration of the two adopted daughters he molested. The man was convicted of nine sex-related charges and faces up to 23 years in prison. The younger daughter was forced to have sex with her adoptive father when she was eleven in the study where he wrote his sermons. The man is father to his older daughter's son. (Source: Associated Press/AP, 1-18-01)

... A young girl who was being assaulted by her adoptive father went to Rev. Lou Montecalvo for counseling. He told her to "get on your knees and pray for forgiveness" for violating the sanctity of her parents' marriage. The father eventually was sent to prison. The girl's attorney called the minister's behavior "an outrageous, intentional infliction of emotional distress on the girl." (Source: Denver Post, 6-3-87)

3. Mormons & Adoption

The Mormon Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints regards accurate documentation of one's genealogy to be an essential requirement of the religion and has resulted in the largest collection of vital records information worldwide. Yet both the adoption industry and the Mormon Church has encouraged adopters to "seal the adoptee to the genealogy of the adopter," in most cases, without knowledge of true heritage, even if hypocritical to their beliefs, and so the Mormon stronghold of Utah falsifies its adoptee's birth record which names the adopters as the parents, and Utah will not permit an adult adoptee access to his/her true birth record.

In "Adoption Laws Threaten Death of Genealogy," an article by Attorney Brice M. Claggett in the National Genealogical Society (NGS) Newsletter, Claggett describes how genealogical research, whether for medical purposes, sociological studies, or hobby purposes, is becoming increasingly impaired with each passing generation by secrecy laws. The bogus record names the adoptive parents as the parents and does not reveal in any way that they are not the birth parents. Thus, the researcher has no way of knowing that the apparent ancestry of the child as shown in public records is bogus. Attorney Claggett estimates that IN ANOTHER 4 GENERATIONS OR SO, ABOUT HALF THE ANCESTRY OF THE AMERICAN POPULATION WILL BE BOGUS. (See "Death of Genealogy" on this web-site for detailing.)

4. Jews & Adoption

Adoption in Jewish life is as old as the Bible. Moses was the first adoptee, raised by Pharoah's wife and later returned to his people ("Let my People go")Unable to have a child of his own, Abraham adopted his servant Eliezer as his heir. Jacob adopted two of his grandsons as sons. Esther was raised by her cousin Mordecai. The classical Jewish statement regarding adoption refers to Michal, the wife of King David: "Merab bore them and Michal brought them up, therefore they are called by her name. This teaches that whoever brings up an orphan in his home, Scripture ascribes it to him as though he had begotten him" (Sanhedrin 19b). This may be where the "as born to" myth originated and which adoption brokers and agencies have since used as a marketing tool.

Nonetheless, there is no equivalent in Jewish law to civil adoption, which requires the adopters to assume all rights and responsibilities towards the child, becoming the legal parents in every way. In fact, there is no word in classical Hebrew that means "adoption." In modern Israel, the word "ametz" is used, a reference to "a branch transplanted to another tree" (Source: Psalms 80:15-16).

Adoption does not change a child's status in Jewish law. Unlike civil law, Jewish law places great importance on bloodlines and lineage. Even if a child is adopted in the civil courts, the child maintains his or her biological "identity", meaning that if a gentile child is adopted into a Jewish home, the child remains gentile. To be considered Jewish, the child must go through a formal conversion. If the adoptive father is a "Kohen" or "Levi," this status is not passed on to the adopted child. Conversely, if a Jewish baby whose biological father is a "Kohen" is placed for adoption, (theoretically) that child will always remain a "Kohen." If the baby is the firstborn of a Jewish mother, he requires a Pidyon HaBen (the ritual redemption of the firstborn), even if the adoptive parents have other children. However, with rare exceptions, all legal adoptions must be finalized according to state adoption confidentiality laws and most civil adoptions for the past 6 decades have been sealed records adoptions, prohibiting naming the "birth" parents and requiring that the child's surname be changed to his adopters' surname on the birth certificate. AmFOR has completed searches for adoptees raised as Catholics who discovered their biological parents are Jewish, as well as adoptees raised as Jews who discovered their biological parents are Catholic. And one of the most perplexing issues, today's Jewish adopters face is the question of openness. Should there be any contact, and if so, how much, between "birth" parents and adopters?

Jewish law will differ depending on whether the birth mother is Jewish or gentile. It may seem odd, but many Orthodox Jews will avoid adopting a baby born of a Jewish mother. There is a reason: the baby could be the result of adultery or incest, and therefore a "mamzer." By Jewish law, a "mamzer" cannot marry a Jew of "legitimate" birth. Because of these concerns, many Orthodox couples prefer to adopt a baby born of a gentile mother, who would not be subject to these laws. All Conservative and Orthodox rabbis require the formal conversion of a child born to a gentile mother. Many Reform rabbis dispense with this ritual, teaching that it is sufficient simply to give the child a Hebrew name. However, such a child, named in a Reform temple, may have difficulties later in life if he or she chooses to affiliate with a more traditional synagogue or marry a Conservative or Orthodox Jew. Similarly, an Orthodox rabbi may not recognize a Conservative conversion, and refuse to officiate at the marriage of such a convert. A child adopted and converted to Judaism as an infant has the right to reject the conversion upon reaching the age of majority (12 for a girl, 13 for a boy). On the other hand, an adopted child who grows up in a loving Jewish home and receives a serious Jewish education can reaffirm that conversion. The Jewish community is deeply divided about conversion policies for adopted children. Such adoptions represent a radical change for the Jewish community. Despite Hitler's "Master Race" plan resulting in mass extermination of Jews, today's infertile Jewish couples, desperate for a child, evidently don't view adoption, which exterminates the child's true heritage, as a form of genocide. The "midrash" teaches, "The one who brings up a child is called its parent, not the one who gave birth" (Source: Exodus Rabbah 46:5).

In the 1950s and 1960s, Jews could not adopt through the predominately Christian adoption agencies--and even today they would encounter problems-- but, in desperation, those who could afford black market adoption bought their children. Adoptee Bill Berle explains that his adopter, the famed comedian, Milton Berle, through his celebrity contacts, found channels for procuring the newborn boy for his wife Ruth (Source: "My Father, Uncle Milty," by Bill Berle) . Yvette Silverman Melanson, stolen along with a twin brother from her Navajo family 43 years ago, raised rich, white and Jewish in Brooklyn. (Source: "Reunion Day at 43, Navajo Native Finally Home," Boston Globe, 6-2-96).

Statistics are hard to come by, but it appears that adoption among Jews is on the rise. The main reason is that Jews often postpone childbearing until later years, at which time infertility. According to the Council of Jewish Federations' 1990 National Jewish Population Survey, three percent of all Jews in America, or 246,000 of 8,200,000 Jews, were adopted. There are about 60,000 adopted children under age eighteen in the total Jewish population. Desperation of infertile Jewish couples accounts for 25% of the adopted children came from overseas.

from poundpuplegacy.org/node/1875

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.

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 across 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 beginning, 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.

Church, State & Adoption

ADOPTION SCHEMES THAT VIOLATE SEPARATION OF CHURCH & STATE