Rehoming: The New Return to Sender

I have always heard Koreans call adoptees the lost children of Korea. Well what do we call adoptees who’ve been rehomed, The lost lost children?

This past year the news has buzzed one case highlighting this major form of black market adoption. An adoptee started speaking out on how her adoptive dad, her supposed “forever home”, deserted her on a farm of rehomed adoptees. A farm of children where they were all abused by their new adoptive mom. Of course this case is still pending, but it sparked other rehomed adoptees to speak out as well. These terms like “forever home” and “rehoming” are sickening, but they weren’t created for adoptees or even humans. Go on CraigsList and search to buy a new pet. Those are where the terms come from.

Now in many of these cases the adoptive parents are in over their heads with a child of behavioral, physical, and/or psychological issues. Other adoptive parents find they could never bond with the adoptee, the family has finical issues, there’s a divorce, or maybe a spouse suddenly passed. These are also the same reasons that sparked “return to sender”. Thankfully you can no longer return the child, but in the US legally giving your adoptive child to a stranger is well.. perfectly legal. As long as you sign over power of attorney, effectively disowning the child, you are in the clear. There are no laws that even imply this form of trafficking is going on.

What got the world to realize “return to sender” was wrong? How do we do that again with adoptive parents who can’t keep the roof up of the forever home? How should the adoptee community handle the truths of the reselling and disposal of fellow adoptees?

All you need to find an adoptee farm is the internet. “Farm” is also a strange term, but it’s actually coined by the adoptive parents. A form of code; it’s where all kept children’s dead pets are said to live..


2 thoughts on “Rehoming: The New Return to Sender

  1. This one is hard to talk about and I’ll probably come back to it. The pet analogy is quite fitting, because it seems more and more that “returning to the pound” and “putting down” are available options to those who adopt.

    At my orphanage here in Beirut I found a whole cache of dossiers of children “returned”. All of their files had an addendum added in red ink: “Deceased soon thereafter”.

    I imagine this came about after the double rejection of their return. But even here we seem to err on the side of approving the act of adoption; meaning, “if only” the initial adoption worked out.

    Nothing to me was more disturbing than the mediation after this Reuters story of adoption agencies and parents quick to disclaim “their” adoption practice.

    So I don’t think the world realizes that “return to sender” is wrong; there are many voices out there, from so-called ethicists to adopters, supporting “rehoming”.

    To me it’s like the publication of a work like The Jungle; the “dominant mode” as it were will go with the flow as it were, all the while knowing that the practice will continue, it will just be formalized, publicized better, marketed positively, and reframed to absolve guilt.

    More later perhaps.

Adoptees, what do you think? We welcome your replies!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s