Friday, May 29, 2009

please, call me mom

Found this in a listing for a waiting child:

“Parental rights will be terminated upon identification of a permanent resource.”

permanent resource? you mean me? parents? mom? dad?

Everyone is SO careful about getting the references correct for a “birth mom who is making an adoption plan....”

I don't like being referred to as a “permanent resource.”

Please, call me mom.

my friend MsBirthmom says:

“Adoption is about people coming together to form a family. In whatever way possible!”

I love MsBirthmom, she has been so supportive, and feel honored getting to know a birth mom.

Thursday, May 28, 2009


woo hoo!
23 followers and 3,904 visitors!
who knew?


To date, we have inquired about 12 kids ranging in age 1–5.
  • Two have been adopted already.
  • Two are not allowed to leave their state.
That leaves eight possibilities.

Our social worker has advised us to find as many children to inquire about as possible, but I don't want to inquire just to inquire. I have to feel something when I see the child's face or read their profile, a connection, something.

Our child is out there, I'm convinced. It will take as long as it takes, and I will continue to have frustrating days.


I continue to be frustrated that almost EVERY single child we inquire about has already been adopted.

I know, on the one hand that it is a really great thing: children are being adopted. But on the other hand, I feel like some of these kids are being used as "lost leaders" or "bait and switch" and that is not how photolistings of waiting children should be used.

Is it just because social services are so understaffed they cannot keep up with who has been adopted?

Today I called two local social service departments, 2 different counties. One was very nice and said to call back in three months because they have some kids that will be available for adoption then if things don't work out and their birth parent's rights are terminated. The woman was very kind and helpful.

Just one county away I was told that I need to "use a private adoption agency." Was she having a bad day? I know we all do. But one could be a bit more helpful.

I did learn that not all children have online profiles. So if you are able, you might want to physically go into the office of your area social services (or call first) and ask if you can look through their book of waiting children.

Yes, it continues to be a long and bumpy road.
I hope I can make it less so for others seeking to adopt.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

dear department of social services,

I would greatly appreciate it if you'd include information about a child not being eligible to leave his or her state in their online profile. This would save you and me some time.

I was also sorry to hear that you do not keep your children's profiles up-to-date because you have to pay a webmaster each time you want to make a change. This is most unfortunate for the children.

Also, it would be nice if we could sign up for email alerts when new children become available or when the status of a child changes (for instance some children are not allowed to leave their state, but that can change). This might help the children get adopted faster too! Arizona does this for their children and I think it's great! Thanks Arizona!

Thank you,

Heart Gallery

The Heart Gallery is a national movement inspired by an exhibit created in New Mexico in 2001. As a result of media coverage, over 42 states have created a Heart Gallery and in 2005 the first national Heart Gallery was displayed in Washington, D.C.

A Heart Gallery is an exhibit of portraits. Portraits of children who want to be adopted. Typically photographs are donated by professional photographers who volunteer their time. A Heart Gallery exhibit is distinct because the photographs of the children are done as a portrait of the child’s personality – a more personal feeling than is derived from a typical adoption photo listing.

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

what ARE we expecting

I'm getting excited. I feel like we are getting closer and closer to finding our baby/child,/children or they are getting closer to finding us.

I don't know what we are expecting, a boy? a girl? a baby? a child? twins? siblings?! I'm finding it rather exciting, the possibilities.

All those years, I wanted a baby, our baby. Now I know whatever baby/child/children who come into our family will be ours. They will know the same love our biological child would know. We are meant to be a family, and we will be. It's just not happening the way one imagines, the traditional way. The plans for us are different, and I don't mind any more.

We will just keep searching and searching, and hoping our baby/child/children find us!

What ARE we expecting!?!! It will certainly be a surprise, a joyous surprise!

A family WILL be born!

just the facts, ma'am

  • About 60% of Americans have a personal connection to adoption. [source]
  • Children adopted internationally tend to be younger than children adopted from foster care [source]
  • Almost 90% of children adopted internationally are less than five years old. [source]
  • The majority of those adopted from foster care are more than five years old. [source]
  • Almost half of the children adopted internationally are infants. [source]
  • 2% of the children adopted from foster care are infants. [source]
  • It is estimated that 11% to 24% of couples who experience difficulty conceiving or carrying a pregnancy to term pursue adoption. [source]
  • The number of American children in foster care rose steadily through most of the 1990s, peaking in 1999 at 567,000, and has declined since then to 510,000 in 2006. [source]
  • In 2006, nearly half (46%) of all foster children lived in foster family homes with non-relatives. Nearly a quarter (24 percent) lived in family foster homes with relatives-often known as "kinship care." Seventeen percent of foster children lived in group homes or institutions, 3% lived in pre-adoptive families, and the rest lived in other types of facilities. [source]
  • Almost one-third (31%) of all children who exited foster care in 2006 lived in foster care for less than six months. [source]
  • Children are placed in foster care because a child protective services worker and a court have determined that it is not safe for the child to remain at home due to a risk of maltreatment, including neglect and physical or sexual abuse. [source]
  • 50-70% of foster children are returned to their biological parents [source: The Complete Adoption Book]

foster care facts

These foster care facts are interesting, but, sadly, a bit dated.

Monday, May 25, 2009

list of links

I found this list of links of "babies available for adoption."

I know there are different laws in different states, so be sure you follow laws specific to your state.

Friday, May 22, 2009

Adoptive Parents are Expecting Too

Adoptive Parents are Expecting Too

a great post by Parenthood for Me

(I wish I knew how to do that linkback thingy!)

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Children in the USA who need homes

Maybe they are looking for me and you!!!

This is a list of sites that list children, in addition to

I wanna make it easier on you since you are already coming here. Some of the links on are no longer working.

If you find a site, you are looking for waiting children, heart galleries, our kids, photolistings, etc. I'm made these links go directly to the photos of the kids or to the search page where you can enter specifics. If you know of something I've left out, by all means, let me know and I'll add it! Hopefully we can find homes for some children and children for some homes!!! If you've been reading my blog long, you'll know it's my philosophy that if I know ten things and you know ten things, together we know twenty! I'm all about sharing the info! I hope this helps someone, anyone :)

Covering multiple states or areas:

By state (if the state is not listed, that state only lists their children on

a work in progress...

updated 5.21.09 @ 2:30 p.m. eastern

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

photoslistings and profiles and faces OH MY!

I want to say "now I know how a birth mom must feel when faced with dozens of profiles to look at." But I cannot possible feel the way a birth mom looking for parents for her child feels. I can feel how overwhelming it is to look at so many photographs.

I am looking for a child, and (hopefully) a birth mom or child is looking for me.

I look thought page after page, and wait to feel that "connection." That when I imagine I know what it's like for a birth mom looking at profiles, looking for that "connection" that certain je ne sais quoi.

Yesterday I found him...
But he is not allowed to leave his state (which is not our state). So instead he will remain in foster care. This is the thing I don't get. Who made these rules? OMG, can you believe that little face? Which also begs the question "what is he doing in foster care in the first place?" which a question I now find myself asking me several times a day.

As far as we know, we are still being considered for these two handsome fellows:
Again, who could let them go? Who could let ANY of them go? I know, I know, drugs, alcohol, blah blah. But it's all just breakin my heart.

Are you getting the picture? an idea of what I am going through? I WANT THEM ALL! Call me crazy, who hasn't. I just want to love them and hug them and show them what it's like to be in a real loving home where their every need is met, where they won't be scared of anything, where they won't want for anything (except maybe the odd video game).

Waiting, waiting, waiting. I'd think the social workers working on behalf of these children would be working quickly to get these kids in to a stable "forever" home. I don't get that either.

I do have an alternative motive for posting these photos here. Yes, to tug at your heart strings because I cannot adopt them all. But I want you to know there are children out there who need me AND you.

So, dear reader, this former advocate for infertility treatment, is now an advocate for foster-adoption. These are children who's parent's have had their rights terminated. They are available and there are THOUSANDS of them, HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of them. I encourage you, check them out if you have any, ANY desire at all to adopt. Their faces will touch your heart (unless it's made of stone).

ComeUnity Adoption
This is where I go every day, EVERY DAY, every lunchtime, evenings, 2 a.m.... o f t e n !

There is BUT not all children are listed there.

I have learned that if there is any mention of "family members" the child probably cannot leave his or her state. Sometimes their profiles state that up front, which is nice, sometimes not.

Children are beeing added to these listings every day. When we started our adoption journey, we had no clue. Notta one. We had our hearts set on a newborn. As I mentioned in a previous post, our hearts have changed.

Our child (or children) are our there, now if they'd just hurry up and find us!!!

update 5.21.09 - also waiting to hear about these two:

01.18.10 Today I received a request to remove one of the photos that was formerly posted here. It is the first such request I have received. I have honored your request.

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

call me Mother Goose

Today I told our social worker I wish we could adopt a bunch of kids and I could quit my job and stay home with them!

...the old women who lived in a shoe and had so many children she didn't know what to do.

Ah, if wishes were horses, there's be no goodbyes...

Nia Vardalos on Becoming a Mom – Overnight

by Nia Vardalos
Originally posted Saturday May 09, 2009, 11:25 AM EDT

Talk about your big fat surprises: With one phone call, Nia Vardalos had a daughter. In this exclusive Mother's Day essay for PEOPLE, the star of My Big Fat Greek Wedding talks in detail for the first time about the shock, chaos and "peaceful gratefulness" that came after she and husband Ian Gomez adopted a 3-year-old girl...

click here to read the full story

Struggling families look at adoption

MARENGO, Ill. — Renee Siegfort broke the news to her three teenagers on Mother's Day last year: She was pregnant.

She really wanted the baby. Her kids did, too. Her on-again, off-again boyfriend of three years did not.

"I talked to God a lot, asking what does this mean. What am I supposed to do?" she recalls. She was working long hours as an office manager at a chiropractic firm and just making ends meet. She would need to take on a new expense: child care.

"We live simply," says Renee, 36, looking around the living room of her three-bedroom town home. "There wasn't much more we could simplify in our lives." As much as she wanted the baby, she says, "I didn't want to hurt my children."

So after giving birth Dec. 30, she nursed Josephine Olivia Renee for six days. She then did something she would not have imagined nine months earlier: She gave her child to another family.

Renee says placing Joie (pronounced "Joey") for adoption was the most difficult thing she's ever done, but she has no regrets.

"I've never been more at peace in my life," she says. "Joie deserved better." ...

click here to read the full story

Thank you to all who comment, you encourage me and keep me going. I appreciate that. Thank you for sharing your stories with me, they give me hope.

Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Monday, May 18, 2009

how I spend my lunch hour (and many other hours)

I go here every day at least once, sometimes 2 or 3 times. All the faces staring back at me.

I can't help wonder, how did ALL these kids come to be here. They are so sweet, how could someone NOT love them to bits???


I sometimes get frustrated, I see the photo first, try to find something in the face, something in the eyes, that I connect with. Then I read. Yes, this sounds good, reading more, then I get to "this child may not leave the state of such-n-such." Can that info please be moved to the top of the list so I can read it before I fall in love? Pppffffttt, I fall in love about 50 times every lunch hour! LOL.

I keep reading and looking for the child or children who call out to me. Though there are so many.

And then I wonder, how fair is it for us to be considered for more than one child at a time? Then I think how many PAPs are being considered at any one time, (remembering the birthmom who was looking at 175 profiles!).

9 months and 1 day today, where oh where is my baby, my child...

followup to previous story/post

Maybe Parents Don't Like Boys Better
A follow-up to the recent column about whether daughters cause divorce.

By Steven E. Landsburg
Posted Tuesday, Oct. 14, 2003, at 11:49 AM ET

In a recent column, I argued that the most plausible reason that couples with daughters divorce more often than couples with sons is that parents, on average, prefer boys. Since then my e-mail box has overflowed with objections, alternative theories, and requests for clarification. In the meantime, I've changed my own mind. I think I have a much better way to explain the facts. So, I want to revisit these issues.

First, to the e-mail. The easiest ones to dispose of are those that question the facts, particularly the claim that a one-child American family with a daughter is 5 percent more likely to get divorced than a one-child family with a son. The facts are accurate. The divorce numbers come from a study by Gordon Dahl and Enrico Moretti based on more than 3 million observations from the U.S. Census. With that kind of sample size, there's no way the 5 percent difference is "just a coincidence," as some readers suggested.

Other readers accepted the reality of the 5 percent difference but questioned the conclusion that daughters cause divorce. After all, marriages differ in all sorts of ways that might be relevant—financial stresses, infidelity, emotional distance. The phrase "correlation does not imply causation" popped up a lot.

But in this case, correlation does imply causation, and here's why: If you take 3 million people, have them all flip coins, and divide them into two groups according to whether their coins came up heads or tails, then the two groups are going to look statistically identical in every way—same average income, same average intelligence, same average height. That's called the law of large numbers, and it works for two reasons—first, the sample size is huge, and second, coin flips are random. Now do the same thing, dividing your 3 million people according to the gender of their last-born child. The same thing happens—parents of boys are going to be statistically identical in every way to parents of girls, because you've still got a huge sample size and because the sex of a child is as random as a coin flip. Since everything else is equal, the only thing that can be causing the difference in divorce rates is the gender of the children.

"Why not just ask people why they got divorced?" inquire several e-mails. Answer: You can't feasibly ask 3 million people why they got divorced. You could feasibly ask 3,000, but then your results would be statistically suspect because of a small sample size.

In fact, there are published surveys indicating that mothers of boys are happier on average than mothers of girls. These surveys are directly relevant to the point at issue, but I chose not even to mention them in the original column because Gordon Dahl convinced me that their statistical significance was suspect.

A number of readers offered the comment that, evidence be damned, they would simply never believe that the children's gender could be relevant to a divorce decision. My favorite of these came from a therapist in Iowa—it would probably be inappropriate to mention her name, so let's just call her "Bozo the Therapist"—who took me to task for the "archaic notion" that children ever have anything to do with divorce. Unless she's been practicing not in the state of Iowa but on the planet Iowa in some distant solar system, Bozo must win the prize for "least observant therapist in human history." The fact is that children do affect divorce decisions; if we didn't know this from statistical evidence, we'd still know it from common sense. And to a smallish but non-negligible extent, girls cause more divorces than boys do. Ignoring those facts won't make them go away.

The facts are clear and worth reporting, but there's legitimate controversy about what they mean. There are three key facts: 1) Parents of daughters are more likely to divorce than parents of sons; 2) in multichild families, parents of daughters are more likely to try for another child than parents of sons; 3) divorced mothers of daughters are less likely to remarry than divorced mothers of sons.

I originally said that all three facts point to a parental preference for boys. Several readers pointed out that the third fact—that divorced mothers of daughters are less likely to remarry—admits a better explanation: Mothers don't want to expose their daughters to a potentially predatory stepfather. Excellent point. So, I now think the evidence on remarriages is ambiguous regarding whether second husbands prefer boy stepchildren.

Other readers offered what they thought was counterevidence: Adoption agencies report a higher demand for girls. But this is exactly what you'd expect in a world where parents prefer boys. In such a world, boys will tend to be put up for adoption when there's something seriously wrong with them, but many girls will be put up for adoption simply for being girls. So, if I'm looking to adopt a bright healthy child, of course I'll choose a girl: I expect that among children put up for adoption, girls are on average brighter and healthier than boys. I could well make this choice even if I prefer boys to girls, as long as my preference for bright and healthy is stronger.

Still, several readers came up with other ways to explain the facts. A lot of their stories were rooted in evolutionary biology, e.g., "a boy is a better genetic investment because boys can have more progeny than girls." Unfortunately, that doesn't work. For every boy with more than the average number of offspring, there's another with less than the average number. Boys are likelier than girls to generate 20 children, but they're also likelier to generate zero.

The most creative evolutionary biology explanation comes from reader Todd Peters: Boys with low self-esteem become withdrawn and unattractive; girls with low self-esteem become promiscuous. So, if you want lots of grandchildren, you've got to raise the self-esteem of your sons (by staying married) and lower the self-esteem of your daughters (by getting divorced).

Ooookay. But let's end on a serious note, with a whole new way of looking at this—the way I wish I'd thought of to begin with. Suppose parents believe that inherited wealth is more important to a boy than to a girl—either because wealth gives boys a bigger advantage in the mating competition or because boys are more likely to do something entrepreneurial. Then parents of boys will try harder than parents of girls to preserve their wealth. In particular: 1) Parents of boys will avoid divorce, because divorce is costly; and 2) parents of boys will have fewer children, because extra children dilute the inheritance.

That could explain the divorce statistics and explain why parents of boys are less likely to try for more children. So, here's a nice theory that fits all the facts and doesn't rely on a preference for boys.

Finally, a lot of readers asked me about my own preferences. I cannot imagine why they're interested. If I were reporting on national employment trends, would you want to know my personal employment history? But for the record, I'm pleased to say that I always wanted a girl, I got the girl I wanted, and so far she's perfect. Ask me again next month after she starts driving.

The Girls vs. The Boys

I've been wondering why there are SO many boys available for adoption so I Googled... It's old, but interesting.

Bringing Up Babes
Why do adoptive parents prefer girls?

By John Gravois
Updated Friday, Jan. 16, 2004, at 11:52 AM ET

Illustration by Robert Neubecker

Steven E. Landsburg deduced from an array of data that parents, on average, prefer sons over daughters. His evidence lay in a few recent studies that show that daughters have a slight but marked tendency to break up (or else forestall) marriages while sons tend to keep them together. But it turns out there's a fascinating fork in the statistical trail of bread crumbs.

For years, it's been common currency in adoption circles that girls are far more popular than boys among adoptive parents. Now there's data to confirm it, which has prompted another round of speculation about gender preference among parents—an issue that is bound to rouse more interest, and concern, as the era of assisted reproduction progresses.

This past August, the Census Bureau released an unprecedented report comparing adopted, biological, and stepchildren based on results from the 2000 Census—amazingly, the first census to differentiate between these groups. First of all, the report found that there are about 105 boys for every 100 girls in the general population of biological children under the age of 18. Adopted children, it turns out, present a very different picture, with a "sex ratio"—the sociologists' term—of 89 boys for every 100 girls. What's more, adopted children under the age of 6 constitute a group where there only are 85 boys for every 100 girls. (The Census Bureau reports that stepchildren—a sizable population whose sex ratio is closer to the norm—are usually adopted at later ages than orphans are. Hence the under-6 drop-off.

Last but not least, the sex ratio of adopted children goes still further off-kilter if you look only at international adoptions. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (now part of the Department of Homeland Security) has kept up excellent data on international adoptions over decades of processing visa paperwork. Its word: Girls make up about 64 percent of all children adopted by Americans outside the United States. That's a mere 56* boys for every hundred girls.

What explains the disproportion? If we didn't know better, the most obvious conjecture would be that these numbers simply reflect an imbalance in supply. After all, America's leading source of adoptees is China, where the legacy of female infanticide is the grimmest hallmark of that country's overwhelming preference for males. The organization Families With Children From China reports that about 95 percent of children available for adoption in China are girls. Other Asian adoption hubs (like Korea, the erstwhile lead supplier) have orphan sex ratios that tend in the same direction. So Americans adopt more girls because other countries don't want them, right?

Wrong. Unlike biological parents, who must simply make do with what the procreative coin toss affords them—as in a market determined solely by supply—adoptive parents get to be upfront about their gender preferences. And a look at those preferences suggests that, in fact, the adoption market in China represents a happy coincidence of supply and demand.

Numbers vary, but it's pretty safe to say that somewhere between 70 percent and 90 percent of parents looking to adopt register some preference for a girl with an agency. It doesn't matter if they're adopting from China, where girls far outnumber boys; from Russia, where the numbers are about even; or from Cambodia, where there is typically a glut of orphan boys and a paucity of girls. Everywhere, demand tends to favor the feminine.

And, as the case of Cambodia suggests, demand can in fact exert an influence on supply—and not a happy one. In the late '90s, Cambodia became a popular source for American adoptions, thanks to a relatively quick, cheap, and tidy process. But for whatever reason (some cite a Cambodian tradition that girls are expected to take care of their parents when they get older), Cambodia didn't offer the standard Asian profile of adoptable children. Boys outnumbered girls by a healthy margin. So what happened was what you would expect to happen in an underpoliced free market: Market pressure built up, until certain enterprising Cambodian adoption suppliers, or "facilitators," stepped in and found a way to meet demand.

Evidence of child-trafficking came to light in late 2001 and early 2002, when several poor Cambodian women stepped forward saying they had been approached by someone from an "NGO" who offered them a sum of money—significantly more for a daughter than for a son, though never more than $200—in exchange for their children. When that "NGO" turned out to be an orphanage, the U.S. Embassy and the then-INS slammed the gates on all U.S. adoptions out of Cambodia. They haven't reopened the gates yet.

Scholars inside the adoption community are quick to admit that the historical aura of secrecy surrounding adoption has hobbled research efforts to account for the decided preference among parents for girls. Still, there are a few decent indicators. First, there are certain norms and stereotypes peculiar to the world of adoption that have been wafting around since adoption became a modern institution. Take, for example, the following quote, an excerpt from the 1916 annual report of the Spence Alumni Society, one of the very first American adoption agencies: "Why do so many people prefer girls! The majority seem to feel that a girl is easier to understand and to rear, and they are afraid of a boy."

Quaint, yes, but the same view still crops up regularly enough in adoption-talk that it invites some probing. Parents might be "afraid of a boy" because the adoption market stalks frightful circumstances like poverty, instability, and violence around the map: When taking the somewhat risky step of bringing a foreign element into their family, parents might perceive little boys to be inheritors of their homes' uneasy fortunes, whereas little girls can more readily seem to be hapless victims of circumstance. Or it might be that, as Landsburg suggested in a follow-up piece, adoptive parents choose girls out of an inference that his theory is true—that most biological parents like sons better—and therefore they gather that "boys will tend to be put up for adoption when there's something seriously wrong with them, but many girls will be put up for adoption simply for being girls."

According to Adam Pertman, the real answer lies elsewhere. Pertman, the executive director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, a New York-based think tank, and author of the book Adoption Nation, suggests that the most important step in figuring out why so many people want to adopt girls is to look at who wears the pants in most adoption processes. Hint: It isn't the men.

"The extent to which women are the driving force in most adoptions is probably a factor," he says. "It's usually true that the women are filling out the paperwork, going to the conferences, the support groups." He adds, "If I speak at a conference—whether it's on adoption or family issues—at least 80 to 90 percent of any of these audiences are women."

If men are indeed largely silent partners in most adoptions, it could indicate that men's preferences with regard to their children's gender are simply not as strong when patrimony is not an issue. A man might hanker pretty strongly after a biological son to pass down both his name and his genes; but if that grand prize, so to speak, is not on the table, he may not care as much either way. Furthermore, if women are the ones running the show in most adoptions, and daughters are the ones getting adopted, it might nudge us toward the overall conclusion that parents merely tend to want children who are like themselves. Absent a strong paternal vote, mothers adopt daughters—and, as Landsburg noted, "fathers stick around for sons when they won't stick around for daughters." If adoption has any light to shed on the larger questions of gender preference among parents, this is probably it: More often than not, the view from adoption has it, mom wants a little girl, and dad wants a little boy.

But perhaps it's worth considering whether deeper motivations might also be at work. Let's assume that the parenting instinct combines two different components: a procreative and a nurturing urge. Some might say women disproportionately answer to the call of nurture, and men are more susceptible to the leaner procreative impulse. In most instances, adoption provides people who cannot satisfy the latter part of that instinct (procreate!) with a means at least to satisfy the former (nurture!). By that reasoning, parents (mostly women) who initiate adoptions do so because they want children to nurture and love, and they adopt girls out of a common perception—however accurate or inaccurate it may be—that girls respond better to nurturing than boys do. Perhaps adoption simply isolates one of the variables involved in why people become parents, and that variable happens to be one that favors girls.

Any institution that grafts altruistic motives, and ends, onto stubborn instinctual predispositions—which is what adoption does—is a cause for rejoicing. (Full disclosure: I have two adopted siblings.) But the adoptive parents' freedom to choose their child's gender can, as recent events in Cambodia suggest, cast a potentially darker light on this cuddly scenario. When little girls or little boys become preferred commodities—instead of just glints in the eye—there can be unforeseen, and unfortunate, consequences.

In this, adoption may be a bellwether of things to come, as rising technologies of assisted reproduction begin to afford biological parents a similar freedom to stipulate the gender of their children-to-be. If nothing else, the case of adoption shows that gender preferences can indeed skew pretty far to one side if parents are free to jot them down before the fact of parenthood (after which point one's theoretical desire for either a son or a daughter usually breaks up against an actual, beloved child of either gender). Perhaps, all speculation aside, we should regard this particular freedom with a wary eye—and applaud the growing number of adoption agencies that don't allow prospective parents to stipulate any gender preference in the first place.

Correction, Jan. 14, 2003: This piece originally miscalculated the gender ratio for adopted children. It is 56 boys for every hundred girls, not 72. Return to the corrected sentence.

"Infertility and IVF: A Womb with a View"

from Williamsburg Yorktown Daily:

Infertility and IVF: A Womb with a View
Dr. John Janousek, M.D.

Thursday, May 14, 2009

courses change

You may have noticed, our journey has changed it's course slightly. We are now looking into foster/adopting. Waiting for a newborn could take a few more years. We certainly wouldn't turn one away, but we've widened our search to include children up to five years old.

For those of you doing your home study, take note, it cost us $150 to change this on our already completed home study report. It's an addendum to our original report. We had never specified boy or girl, we'd be happy to have either.

Foster/adoption is fostering with the intention to adopt. These children are not going back to their birth parents for whatever reason.

Children in foster care are waiting for their birth parents to get their lives together so their children can come back and live in their home.

When you foster with intent to adopt, you are given a stipend (yes, the first thing I think is this system has the potential to be abused by some) until the child reaches the age of 18. The child is also on medicaid until the adoption in finalized.

Please continue to ask me anything, and PLEASE continue commenting, you comments are appreciated!

nine years

Nine years?

I've been thinking, when else have I worked for 9 years to get something I really wanted. It only took me five years to get a college degree. And less time than that to meet the love of my life.

I want a children, a family and to be a mom so badly, I've worked for 9 years to reach that goal.

What else would/could one possible work for 9 years towards?

I'm prepared to search for 9 more.

May is National Foster Care Month

Did you know there are 513,000 American children in foster care?
May is National Foster Care Month. No matter how much time you have to give, you have
the power to do something positive that will change a lifetime for a young person in need.

Get involved. Make a difference. For more information, visit or call 1-888-799-KIDS today!

Friday, May 8, 2009

nearly 9 months

We are 2 weeks away from 9 months of adoption journey. We'd hoped it wouldn't take this long. We've hoped for a lot of things.

We've had 2 opportunities.
  1. a birthmom in PA looked at our profile. Her baby boy was due April 30. She looked at over 150 profiles. We were not chosen.
  2. (sit down for this one) our social worker called us and said that a sibling group was available: a 6 year old by and his 4 year old twin brother and sister. We actually said yes we wanted to be considered for this foster with intent to adopt situation. They had been with a foster to adopt mom who abused the girl. It went to court on Tuesday and all three kids were returned to the abusive foster/adopt mom. We were one of 3 families being considered.
Adoption IS a roller coaster. Oddly, infertility is a roller coaster too... I'm starting to not like roller coasters...

I get SO excited about each opportunity, I don't know how not to. A birthmom friend of mine says it's because I have such a big heart. I think I'm just a glutton.

It's just like when I was pregnant, I want to tell EVERYONE. I find it very hard to keep to myself. But like miscarriage, when these adoptions don't work out, I have to untell everyone.

I am starting to look at adoption like falling in love, we will have to kiss a few frogs before we find our prince or princess.

I will say the last opportunity has opened our hearts to consider older children. We are now thinking we'd like a child up to about 4 years old, maybe 6. If we want to change our home study to reflect this, it will cost $150 so we are going to think about it a bit.

Yes, I do get tired of hearing "your child is out there" but I have to keep believing that it's true.

Let's hope we don't have to wait another 9 months.

Thanks to family, friends and the kindness of strangers. You know who you are. Your support is greatly appreciated.

Saturday, May 2, 2009


Making the decision to have a child is momentous. It is to decide forever to have your heart go walking around outside your body.
~Elizabeth Stone