Audience Relations
Walt Disney Company
500 S. Buena Vista St
Burbank, CA 91521-9722

Dear Sir or Madam:

I am writing about your new release The Country Bears, which has received much comment in the adoption community for its callous treatment of adoption as well as the inaccurate depiction of the adoptive family. With one third of the nation touched by adoption within their immediate families, including a growing number in the news and entertainment industry, we wanted to take this opportunity to educate you in the hopes that future programming with adoption-related themes will be more balanced and accurate.

We understand full well that adoption is curious and, therefore, makes for good drama, good copy and good gossip. We also realize that other family relations are rich ground for story lines. For that reason, we are not asking you to eliminate adoption themes. We hope that in educating you about adoption we will gain a more tempered and balanced treatment in future programming. Much of the feature and television program to date has reinforced an already negative and inaccurate understanding of adoption, adoptees as well as both adoptive and birth families, which impacts both those touched by adoption and society at large.

The Country Bears is extremely misleading since it suggests that adoptive families are ashamed of how they were built and deny it even when it is obvious. While that may have been true several decades ago, today it is not. Indeed, adoptive families are very proud of how they came to be and celebrate the rich and diverse backgrounds of their children. Far from denying adoption, many adoptive families are in touch with birth families and stand ready to assist their children if and when they want to learn more about their origins.

We are asking that if you are going to exploit adoption for your story line, that perhaps some of that story line can be used to educate on the realities of adoption. The many resources available to do that can be accessed instantaneously and could add to the story rather detract from it or bog it down. Indeed, you only have to ask the growing number of celebrities in Hollywood who have been touched by adoption and are outspoken in their desire to enhance its understanding.

We also understand that, as parents, it is up to us to educate our children about the ignorance that still exists about adoption and to arm them against inappropriate or insensitive remarks or situations. Indeed, this is exactly what we do. However, our task is made more difficult by the fact that popular media often contradicts the very things we try to teach such as the fact:
That adopted and biological children are equal in the law and in our hearts;
That adoptive families are very open about how their families were built and, indeed, have a fierce pride in that and their children's heritage; and
That the joys and challenges of adoptive parenting are virtually the same as biological parenting.

While you may say the end reconfirmed the bear's place in the family, the lasting impression of problematic children remained unaddressed with your audience.

Part of understanding adoption includes understanding that callous treatment in the media impacts more than just adoptive and birth families. I have included a small brochure, entitled Why Should You Understand Adoption?, outlining how the social bias against adoption impacts society in general. I hope it will be useful and informative. (A more complete version is on our web site at www.adoptioninformationinstitute.org.) We know it is not your job to reform society. However, we also know you understand the powerful role the media plays in forming public opinion.

We hope future program will seek to educate as well as entertain. They are not mutually exclusive.

Sincerely yours,

Kathryn B. Creedy
Executive Director

cc: Peter Hastings, director, The Country Bears
Mark Perez, screenwriter, The Country Bears

Cavalier Use of the Word Adoption

Dear Today:

I am writing about your segment on the Interior Department giving away lighthouses. The piece was introduced by Hoda Kotbe who said it was a chance to "adopt" a lighthouse. I was very disappointed since the adoption community believes that equating adoption to mere sponsorship diminishes a wonderful, life-affirming way to form a family.

For those of us touched by adoption, we know that adoption is forever and we are forever families. Adoption is a legal, sacred rite that forms a loving family that is as deserving of respect as biological families. Adoption is just another way to build a family; one of which we are justly proud.

It has been suggested that instead of educating society about adoption, we should teach our children. In fact, we do teach our children that adoption is forever and we are forever families. However, it is the popular media which contradicts us by its cavalier use of the term adoption. Therein lies the problem.

Lest you think we are being overly sensitive, let me say that language is extremely important and the way we describe such things as adoption tells us how society really feels about it. To be so cavalier with the word adoption, creates confusion in our children.

While you see such things as "adopt-a-highway" and "adopt-a-zoo-animal," such usage does not make it right and only illustrates societal ignorance. The National Zoo solved this problem decades ago by calling their program Friends of the National Zoo. Clearly this is not a new concern, but one we continue to face. Indeed, a group in Massachusetts recently forged a movement to eliminate all the adopt-a-highway signs in the state and others want to take this movement nationwide.

Adoption is not sponsorship. It is permanent. We ask that your program respect that. Is it really too much to ask that when people use the word adoption that it reflect the permanency it suggests? Is it really unreasonable to ask people to use the word "sponsor" (a far more accurate description) instead? We do not think so.

Adoption is no longer a small niche in the panorama of the American family. One third of the nation is touched by adoption within their immediate families. It is a growing way to build a family and it is changing the face of the American family as a result.

We know such usage is born of ignorance and it is up to us to educate. By writing this letter we hope that is exactly what we have done and your reporters will take it to heart.

Sincerely yours,
Kathryn B. Creedy
Executive Director, Institute for Adoption Information

Letters to the Editor

Dear Editor,

For the second time, I picked up my newspaper and was disturbed that it had so little understanding of adoption as to equate it with mere sponsorship.

The latest faux pas emerged in the caption to a photo concerning the arrival of all the wonderful children brought here by the Fresh Air Fund. "This is a two-week event where families from the Bennington area adopt children from the inner city for a small vacation from their usual urban environment," it stated. Last year one of the local social service organizations ran an ad thanking those who "adopted" a family by donating winter coats.

For those of us touched by adoption, we know that adoption is forever and we are forever families. Adoption is not merely sponsoring a child. Adoption is a legal, sacred rite that forms a loving family that is as deserving of equal respect as biological families. Adoption is just another way to build a family; one of which we are justly proud.

Lest you think we are being overly sensitive, let me say that language is extremely important and the way we describe such things as adoption tells us how society really feels about it. To be so cavalier with the word adoption, creates confusion in our children and diminishes a wonderful, life-affirming way to form a family. Indeed, to be so cavalier is highly offensive to us. While you see such things as in "adopt-a-highway" and "adopt-a-zoo-animal," such usage does not make it right and only illustrates societal ignorance. The National Zoo solved this problem decades ago by calling their program Friends of the National Zoo. Clearly this is not a new concern, but one we continue to face.

Adoption is not sponsorship. It is permanent. We ask that your newspaper and its readers respect that. There are many, many adoptive families in this area. Indeed, one third of the nation is touched by adoption within their immediate families. It is a growing way to build a family and it is changing the face of the American family as a result.

We know such usage is born of ignorance and it is up to us to educate. By writing this letter we hope that is exactly what we have done and your readers will take it to heart.

Sincerely yours,
Kathryn B. Creedy, Executive Director, Institute for Adoption Information

Dear Abby: Birthmother's Recognition Around Mother's Day

June 8, 2001

Dear Abby,

I read with interest the letter from the birthmother seeking recognition as this year's Mother's Day approached.

Adoption has been steeped in secrecy, shame and fear for all three members of the adoption triad - birth and adoptive parents as well as adoptees. Thankfully that is changing as adoption has become something of which to be proud.

While all three triad members suffer from the baggage of the past, it is the birth parents that are, perhaps the least understood. Your own column has told of birth parents afraid of telling friends and co-workers of their adoption plans for fear of being criticized.

It is not birthing a child that makes us a parent. Nor is it persevering through sleepless nights, homework, diapers or innumerable soccer games. All that, represents our journey into parenthood to be sure. What makes us parents is to love our children more than ourselves and birth parents have done that.

We adoptive parents proclaim that we doubt we could do what the parents of our children did in letting them go. Most are thankful and respectful of the generous people who allowed us have their children in our lives. We even participate in birth parent day ceremonies held around Mother's Day such as the Fourth Annual Birth Mothers' Day sponsored by the Spence-Chapin Birth Parent Advisory Group and held each year in New York City.

As for myself, I fear not the birth parents of my children. I bless them. To my children they hold an equal status as parents in recognizing and honoring their contributions. There are no adjectives qualifying their title as mother and father because they are as much a part of our mutual children as I am.

What people must understand is that, in making an adoption plan, birth parents have met the very definition of what it is to be a good parent. In realizing that the best they could do may not be what is best for their child, they are ensuring the safety, health and love of their child. Is there a better definition of a parent?

Sincerely yours,
Kathryn B. Creedy
Celebrate Adoption
www.adoptioninformationinstitute.org

Jeopardy: Unnecessary use of the term Adoption

February 1, 2002

Jeopardy
Audience Feedback
10202 W Washington Blvd
Culver City, CA 90232

February 2, 2002

Dear Jeopardy,

I am writing about a clue you aired that diminishes more than six million Americans who joined their families through adoption. Adoption today is quite prevalent. There are more than 100 million Americans touched by adoption.

On Friday, Feb 1, you had a clue concerning Woody Allen marrying the daughter of composer Andre Previn. In that clue, you described the daughter as being adopted. There is no reason to have used the qualifier "adopted" when describing Previn's daughter and in doing so you diminished her role in the family. Using the qualifier in your clue is similar to coverage of the Tom Cruise-Nicole Kidman divorce, which typically described the couple as having "two adopted children." Again, the fact they were adopted is irrelevant. Indeed, Cruise and Kidman stated the use of the qualifier was insulting since it suggested they were somehow less genuine than had they joined the family through birth.

Adoptive families are working diligently to eliminate the use of the word "adopted" or "adoptive" when it has nothing to do with the matter at hand. I have copied a letter from Accurate Adoption Reporting to The Associated Press that will help explain why we feel the way we do.

The letter states: Through their word choices, even well-meaning journalists can and have inadvertently conveyed the misconception that adoptive families are somehow less genuine and permanent, and that people who were adopted ­ and their role in a family ­ remain somehow different. The reality is that adoption is as valid a way of joining a family as birth.

The letter further stated: Journalists need to describe adoption accurately and objectively, but news and feature stories have often employed inaccurate, even sensationalized, language about adoption. For example, many obituaries of Maureen Reagan mentioned that her brother Michael was adopted. The fact that he was adopted 50 years ago was as relevant as information that someone else was born prematurely or by C-section.

While I understand that your clue writers are not journalists, they do pride themselves on accuracy. I hope you will be more sensitive in the future about such cavalier use of unnecessary qualifiers.

Sincerely yours,

Kathryn Creedy
Executive Director, Institute for Adoption Information

LA Times: Suggestions the Adopted Children are Prone to Violence

Sandra Banks
Los Angeles Times

Dear Ms. Banks,

I am the executive director of the Institute for Adoption Information , a nationwide, non-profit organization dedicated to enhancing the understanding of adoption and overcoming the stigmas associated with adoption. I read with interest, your column Hoping Love Can Bridge A Great Divide and thought the conclusions of the studies listed below might prove useful in your future reporting. There are also broad social implications to failing to understand adoption which are outlined on our website (www.adoptioninformationinstitute.org) under Why You Should Understand Adoption.

I was especially gratified that you grasped the concept that the joys and challenges of adoptive parenting differ little from traditional parenting. You are quite right when you suggest that raising children is a dicey proposition no matter how they joined their families.

Unfortunately, despite the advancements in the acceptance of adoption in the last decade, it still suffers from the secrecy of the past as the correspondence from your readers suggest. Birth parents are especially condemned when, in actuality, most have met the very definition of what it means to be a parent. They have put the welfare of their children ahead of their own desires or emotional needs.

Much has been made of loss, which fails to recognize the differing experiences of adoptees. Yes, there are some who experience grief and loss but there are also many others who do not experience adoption that way as the attached studies suggest. It is likely that as adoption practices change to be more open and inclusive of both birth and adoptive families, some of these issues will diminish over time. For now, they remain as we work through the legacy of secrecy and stigma wrought by the last 50 years.

Even so, society - including adoption community members - must resist the temptation to elevate adoption-related loss to some special status. Instead, we need to put such issues into context. The grief and loss of community members may be unique to their experience but it is far from unique to the human condition and it is in this context that we must judge our losses. Everyone has losses, many of which center on rejection and abandonment that have nothing to do with adoption. This is not to say that grief and loss should be ignored. It should not, regardless of whether it centers on adoption or the derailment of life's plans, the loss of a job or loss of a loved one.

The fact is the human condition is problematical. It is filled with a vast mix of complex issues, of which adoption may or may not play a part. The life experiences of triad members cannot be reduced to something as simple as the mere fact they have been touched by adoption. There is much more, including the psychological makeup of the individual and how they face life in general. Consequently, the very thing that purportedly sets us apart as somehow having special issues, is the very thing that makes us the same as everyone else. It is how we deal with the issues encountered during our lifetime, not solely the issues themselves.

I thank you for your understanding and hope you will do more to take non-traditional families out from behind their stigmas.

Sincerely Yours,
Kathryn B. Creedy
Executive Director
www.adoptioninformationinstitute.org

STUDIES CONCLUDE

The one conclusion all adoption studies have in common is the fact that the vast majority of adoptees are just normal kids.

Research stating that adoptees are uniquely vulnerable psychologically, ignore a mountain of data indicated that fully 95% of adopted children are never referred to professionals for therapeutic helpClaims that adoptees are "over-represented ininpatient and residential treatment centers" are false. "There is no evidence to back this up, despite the influential but incorrect" [report by child psychiatrist Arthur Sorosky and social workers Annette Baran and Reuben Pannor.] The Chosen Family, Jean Bethke Elshtain, The New Republic, September 12/21, 1998. Family Matters: Secrecy and Disclosure in the History of Adoption, E. Wayne Carp, Harvard University Press, 1998.

Children adopted in infancy do as well as non-adopted children on several measures central to mental health. The differences are so slight this study puts to rest the oft-stated conclusion that adoptees have major mental health problems compared with their non-adoptive peers. Adoption and Mental Health, E. James Lieberman, MD and Katherine Whipple, Ph.D, Friend of the Court, Volume 5, Spring 1997.

Adopted teenagers were found to be at least at the national average on every dimension, and were above average on most. These kids are optimistic, happy to have been born, and generally got along well with their parents. In school accomplishments and plans for the future they were in at least as good shape as the average American their age. Growing Up Adopted: The Search Institute Study, Dr. Peter L. Benson, Dr. Anu R. Sharma, LP, and Eugene C. Roehlkepartain, June 1994.

Adopted adolescents are as likely to report positive identity as their non-adopted siblings. When asked to compare themselves with others their age, they report satisfactory resolution of identity concerns at rates as high or higher than their peers. And on an index of self-esteem, adopted adolescents compare favorably to a public school sample of 12- to 18-year olds in the same four-states studied. Most adopted adolescents in the study demonstrated successful adjustment at a rate that rivals adolescents in general and on several measures of psychological health, adopted adolescents are slightly healthier than a comparison sample of public school adolescents. Growing Up Adopted: The Search Institute Study, Dr. Peter L. Benson, Dr. Anu R. Sharma, LP, and Eugene C. Roehlkepartain, June 1994.

The study showed extremely high rates of attachment to adoptive parents, as deeply attached as their non-adopted siblings. Ninety five percent of parents have a strong attachment to their adopted child. Ninety five percent of adoptive families say that raising an adopted child is no different than raising a non-adopted child. Indeed, the term adoption, or adoptive are not defining factors to these families' existence. Growing Up Adopted: The Search Institute Study, Dr. Peter L. Benson, Dr. Anu R. Sharma, LP, and Eugene C. Roehlkepartain, June 1994.

The impact of adoption on children is an overwhelmingly a positive one. Adoptive families provide supportive, nurturing environments for young people whose biological parents are unable to care for them properly. The effects of those positive family environments are evident in the health, development and behavior of young adoptees. Nicholas Zill, Vice President and Director of Child and Family Studies, Westat, Inc in testimony before the House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Human Resources, May 10, 1995.

Adoptees saw themselves as being more in control of their lives and had more confidence in their own judgment than did the non-adopted. On numerous other comparisons, adoptees tended to view others more positively, had a more internal locus of control, and saw their parents as significantly more nurturant, comforting, predictable, protectively concerned and helpful than did non-adoptees. K.S. Marquis and R.A.Detweiler, Does Adopted Mean Different, 1985, as described in The Adoption Handbook.

Evidence suggesting that the adoptee has greater or more sustained difficulty with the tasks of adolescence was not found, indicated that adoptive status, in and of itself, is not predictive of heightened stress among adolescents...as a group, the adolescent adoptees were doing quite well. Leslie Stein and Janet Hoopes, Child Welfare League of America, 1985.

WYJB Radio: Suggestions that adopted children are bought

June 17, 2002

Chris Holmburg, Program Producer
WYJB
6 Johnson Rd
Latham, NY 12110

Dear Sir,

Your station plugs itself as being a safe place for parents and children to listen together to music. I can only say I was extremely relieved that my children were not in the car this morning when your on-air personality said that adopted children are bought and sold.

I can't tell you how upset this made me. I am extremely insulted that someone would even suggest that adoption is tantamount to slavery. We do not buy and sell people in this country and to say that adoptive parents buy their children is incredible.

I was listening to 95.5, July 17, 2002, about 8:45 a.m. when your Kelly Stevens was talking about Liza Minelli wanting to adopt a child. What Ms. Stevens said was Ms. Minelli wants to adopt - "let's say buy" - a child. I nearly drove off the road.

I called Ms. Stevens and left a message on her voice mail and am in hopes that she will return my call, so that I may educate her on the impact this has on families. I am also in hopes that she will offer an on-air apology to the thousands of adoptive and birth families in your listening area. But I felt it necessary to also contact you.

Are you aware that one third of the nation is touched by adoption within their immediate families? We can assume that this statistic also applies to your listening audience. Adoptive and birth families are, therefore, not a small subset of your listening audience. Adoption is one of the many ways to build a family and is deserving of the same respect accorded biological parenting.

We adoptive parents undergo extensive investigation to determine our fitness to parent a child; something that biological parents do not have to do. Most have experienced the heartbreak of infertility and face a society that sees adoption as second best when we know that it is not. Adoption, for me, was my first choice. The joys and challenges of adoption are no different than that of biological parenting, yet that is not how society sees it and remarks such as Ms. Stevens only exacerbates an already bad situation. Her remarks also cast doubts in the minds of our children and suggest they were bought and sold.

Lest you think we are being overly sensitive, I'd like to share some thoughts. Beyond the discomfort such remarks bring, are the significant social costs. Less than 2% of teen mothers make an adoption plan which, in the past two decades have led to a crisis in foster care and more than 500,000 children in the system. This has imposed a horrific emotional and human toll. Teen parents tell us they reject adoption based on what they see and hear in the media and the intense social pressure to parent even when they feel unready. All because of the problematic understanding of adoption to which Ms. Stevens so enthusiastically contributed. The annual cost of adolescent childbearing and the entire web of social problems confronting adolescent parents is calculated at $29 billion.

Ms. Stevens' joke also insulted the incredibly altruistic act of birth parents who, in decided that their best may not be what is best for their child, have met the strictest definition of what it means to be a parent. They have put the welfare of their children above their own. These people have not sold their child as Ms. Stevens suggests, they have experienced a heart-breaking but life-affirming choice to see to the care and love of their child even if it is not by them.

If you would like more information on why we should all understand adoption, please take a look at our web site - www.adoptioninformationinstitute.org. I hope you will also share it with Ms. Stevens.

I look forward to hearing from you on this.

Sincerely yours,

Kathryn B. Creedy
Executive Director, Institute for Adoption Information

Salon.com: Suggestions that Adopted Children Are Psychologically Troubled

October 4, 2002

Salon
22 Fourth St. 16th FL
San Francisco, CA 94103

Dear Editor,

I read with interest your Second Opinions column written by Dr. Lawrence Diller. I take great exception to the presumption that adopted children have "troubled genetic pedigrees," as he suggests. In fact, I take exception to the question from the mother who asked why "there are so many adopted kids" who have problems as well as the statistics cited by Dr. Diller which suggests she is right.

While there may be a misperception that adoptees are somehow more fragile or prone to behavioral problems, studies have stated just the opposite. Indeed, a study in 1998 stated: "Research indicating adoptees are uniquely vulnerable psychologically, ignores a mountain of data showing that fully 95% are never referred for therapy." In addition, a 1997 study stated: "Children adopted in infancy do as well as non-adopted children on measures central to mental health. The differences are so slight this study puts to rest the oft-stated view that adoptees have major mental health problems compared with their non-adoptive peers." These conclusions and those of other studies are on our web site at www.adoptioninformationinstitute.org under Why Should You Understand Adoption?

The problem is the issue lacks context and suggests that problems such as the one experienced by the mother in question do not exist in children who remain with their biological families. The entire psychological community will tell you this is not true. There are many biological families with problematic genes that have raised three healthy children and one with mental or other health problems. Indeed, there are many who cite their genetic history as the reason they chose to adopt.

Unfortunately, America holds a significant social bias against adoption as "second best," suggesting our children are somehow problematic simply because they are adopted. This bias leads people - teachers, medical professionals, journalists - to clutch at what may seem an easy answer, immediately blaming adoption. It also unfairly stigmatizes an entire population and has a negative affect on those touched by adoption. As one 10-year-old told us: "The only thing wrong with adoption is what everybody thinks about it."

The fact is, life is complex as are the reasons children - adopted or not - may have problems. To assume the cause is adoption constitutes a disservice, may distract from the real causes and delay effective help when problems do arise.

Adoption is gaining in acceptance, as brilliantly outlined in the book Adoption Nation: How the Adoption Revolution is Transforming America, by Adam Pertman. In fact, one-third of the nation is touched by adoption within their immediate families. However, it still carries with it the baggage and misperceptions of the past and we hope you will help dispel them.

Sincerely yours,
Kathryn B. Creedy
Executive Director, Institute for Adoption Information

Dr. Phil: Exploitation of Adoption in Day-Time Talk Shows

November 5, 2002

Dr. Phil
PO Box 1902
5482 Wiltshire Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90036

Dear Dr. Phil:

As the executive director of the Institute for Adoption Information, a nationwide non-profit organization dedicated to enhancing the understanding of adoption and the issues affecting triad members (birth and adoptive parents as well as adoptees), I have grown concerned that so many day-time talk shows exploit adoption in their programming. A member recently alerted me to your upcoming topic on adoption.

Programming covering adoption does little to educate the public. Indeed, it often reinforces the negative stereotypes and perpetuates the myths and misperceptions about adoption. The questions you have posted under Has An Adoption Affected Your Family? suggests that the program may do the same. When I see such things, I try to educate those who would do these shows in hopes of alerting them to the social bias against adoption as well as the social consequences of not understanding adoption.

I am hoping you will balance your program with material we have gathered which is readily available on our web site at www.adoptioninformationinstitute.org under Why Should You Understand Adoption? This material recounts the serious social implications of not understanding adoption as well the realities of adoption. One third of the nation is touched by adoption within their immediate families, making this of some importance. In addition, failure to address the social bias against adoption means the barrier to finding permanent homes for the half million children waiting for forever families remains very high.

I hope I have helped you to understand the importance of balanced programming on enhancing the understanding of adoption.

We only ask that adoption be put into context as so aptly illustrated by the words of a columnist for the Los Angeles Times. She actually provided us with a litmus test when she answered a reader who suggested that adoption was just "too dicey."

"As if raising children ­ however, they join our families ­ isn't dicey anyway," she said. "Many of us have special challenges ­ single parents, the working poor, grandparents raising their children's kids ­ and statistics stacked against us. Children with emotional and behavior problems can be found on any family tree." That is precisely the context we are looking for. It is this simple fact that gives us our greatest weapon in the effort to normalize adoption.

Sincerely yours,

Kathryn Creedy
Executive Director

Why does it matter that we enhance the understanding of adoption?:

It matters because:

Hundreds of thousands of children are still waiting for loving homes. Until we address the social bias against adoption, the barrier to helping these boys and girls find permanent homes remains very high.

Research on pregnant teens has concluded that they often get information about adoption from television, particularly soap operas and day-time talk shows that regularly sensationalize adoption themes. Since teen parents are at greater risk for neglect and abuse, the low adoption rate of the children of teens has contributed to a crisis in foster care.

The gross annual cost to society of adolescent childbearing and the entire web of social problems confronting adolescent parents is calculated to be $29 billion. Kids Having Kids, Robin Hood Foundation, 1996.

Half the children of unprepared teen mothers enter foster care, which seriously undermines their prospects in life.

Less than 2% of all unplanned pregnancies result in an adoption plan. A 1995 survey indicated that less than 1% of teens choose to make an adoption plan.

Young people who want to make adoption plans report intense pressure from peers and teachers to parent even if they feel unready to do so ~ and even if they do not have economic resources or personal support systems to help them.

Birthparents who do make adoption plans report intense criticism from society for their actions.

Professionals who encounter adoptive and birth families make inappropriate remarks in front of the children.

It matters to the childless seeking what is inherent in most of us ­ the simple desire for a family.

It matters to children whose friends ask them why their "real parents gave them up."

And it matters to all those touched by adoption that we be understood for what we actually are, not for what people think we are, a familiar litany voiced by every minority seeking understanding and acceptance.

The reality is:

Day in and day out, the joys and challenges of adoptive parenting are the same as biological parenting.

Birth parents, in deciding that the best they can do may not be what is best for the child, have met the strictest definition of what it means to be a parent. They have put the welfare of their children ahead of their own desires or emotional needs.

Adoptive families today embrace their childrens' heritage, retain a connection to their racial, ethnic and cultural roots, integrate those elements into their families, and long to be welcomed into these diverse communities.

The human condition is complex and issues cannot be reduced to a single factor such as adoption.

Research indicating adoptees are uniquely vulnerable psychologically, ignores a mountain of data showing that fully 95% of them are never referred for therapy. The Chosen Family, Jean Bethke Elshtain, The New Republic, September 12/21, 1998.

Children adopted in infancy do as well as non-adopted children on measures central to mental health. The differences are so slight this study puts to rest the oft-stated view that adoptees have major mental health problems compared with their non-adoptive peers. Adoption and Mental Health, E. James Lieberman, MD and Katherine Whipple, Ph.D, Friend of the Court, Volume 5, Spring 1997.

Adopted teenagers are at least at the national average on every dimension, and are above average on most. These kids are optimistic, happy to have been born, and get along well with their parents. In school accomplishments and plans for the future they are in at least as good shape as the average American their age. Growing Up Adopted: The Search Institute Study, Dr. Peter L. Benson, Dr. Anu R. Sharma, LP, and Eugene C. Roehlkepartain, June 1994.

Adoptees see themselves as being more in control of their lives and have more confidence in their own judgment than do their non-adopted peers. In numerous other comparisons, adoptees tended to view others more positively, have a more internal locus of control, and see their parents as significantly more nurturing, comforting, predictable, protectively concerned and helpful than did the non-adopted. K.S. Marquis and R.A.Detweiler, Does Adopted Mean Different, 1985, as described in The Adoption Handbook.

Studies show extremely high rates of attachment to adoptive parents, as deep as their non-adopted siblings. Ninety five percent of parents have a strong attachment to their adopted child and 95% of adoptive families say that raising an adopted child is no different than raising a non-adopted child. Indeed, the terms adoption and adoptive are not defining factors to these families' existence. Growing Up Adopted: The Search Institute Study, Dr. Peter L. Benson, Dr. Anu R. Sharma, LP, and Eugene C. Roehlkepartain, June 1994.

The impact of adoption on children is overwhelmingly positive. Adoptive families provide supportive, nurturing environments, the effects of which are evident in the health, development and behavior of young adoptees. Nicholas Zill, Vice President and Director of Child and Family Studies, Westat, Inc in testimony before the House of Representatives Committee on Ways and Means, Subcommittee on Human Resources, May 10, 1995.

Thanks for Excellent Coverage

Dear Up Close:

I am writing to thank you for your excellent coverage of Adoption aired Wednesday, January 9, 2003.

The interview with Adam Pertman, Executive Director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, was extremely important to enhancing the understanding of adoption.

The program also reflected a growing appreciation by serious news media for adoption and the issues facing those touched by it. Coverage in the past few years has greatly improved the understanding of adoption and the recent edition of Up Close can be counted among the best of the best.

ABC News has been especially important to efforts to eliminate the social bias against adoption. For instance, 20/20 has consistently covered the plight of children around the world in need of permanent homes. Barbara Walters' Born in My Heart went further, discussing the myths and stigmas and educating the public on the positive realities of adoption. In addition, her programming with Rosie O'Donnell on the problems in Florida was extremely illuminating on the plight of children in foster care.

I congratulate Up Close, and all those at ABC News, for helping to enhance the understanding of adoption.

Sincerely yours,

Kathryn B. Creedy
Executive Director
Institute for Adoption Information
www.adoptioninformationinstitute.org

Dateline: Balanced Coverage on Searching

January 10, 2003

Allan Maraynes, Senior Producer
Dateline
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112
Email: dateline@nbc.com

Dear Mr. Maraynes,

I wanted to write to congratulate you on your recent story concerning an adoptee returning to Korea to find his birth family. In the past decade, I have watched the evolution of Dateline's coverage of adoption and applaud your growing understanding of the subject. Programming has gone from such sensational stories as the Baby Jessica genre to well-balanced explorations of the evolution of the family.

The coverage about which I am writing, was balanced and sensitively depicted the struggle all three members of the adoption triad ­ adoptee and birth and adoptive parents ­ undergo in a search. But the program was important for another reason. Historically, adoptees, who wanted to search were depicted as somehow troubled. However, studies conclude that such searching is perfectly normal. Indeed, judging from the popularity of the genealogic movement since the publication of Alex Haley's Roots, and the number of visitors to the genealogy center at the Church of the Latter Day Saints, searching for one's roots goes far beyond adoption.

In addition, your program also enabled viewers to understand how adoption is changing not only the American family but America itself. There are 20,000 international adoptions annually, many of which are trans-racial adoptions. Your program shows that families don't always look like one another and that is okay. While all adoptions deeply enrich our families, trans-racial adoptions add new components to our families as we weave our childrens' culture, race, country and heritage into our traditions and observances.

In addition to providing an increased understanding for those touched by adoption, depicting adoption in a positive light has serious social implications. Our web site (www.adoptioninformationinstitute.org) includes a document entitled Why Should You Understand Adoption? It recounts the social costs of allowing the myths and stigma surrounding adoption to continue. I hope you will take a minute to review it.

This Dateline program has received much praise within the adoption community. The only criticism is directed toward the promotional ads aired. It suggested that because the adoptee searches, he or she, must then make a choice between families. Nothing could be further from the truth. While reunions may not be smooth, the same can be said for anyone trying to adjust to a new, highly charged relationship. The experience of many non-traditional families attests to this. All three members of the triad favor adoptees searching for and getting to know their origins. Therefore, it should be supposed that the vast majority of such reunions have the potential for greatly expanding familial relationships, rather than replacing them.

While we understand that program promos often tend to sensationalize, we urge you not to reinforce inaccurate and negative stereotypes when you are trying to attract viewers.

Again, congratulations on your excellent programming. We look forward to more balanced and informative coverage.

Sincerely yours,
Kathryn B. Creedy

Hallmark Channel: Adoption; A Wonderful Series

Lana Corbi
The Hallmark Channel
12700 Ventura Blvd
Ste 200
Studio City, 91602

Dear Ms. Corbi,

I understand producers are working on a new series on adoption. I wanted to take a moment to congratulate you on the first series aired on the Hallmark Channel last summer. This letter will try to detail the importance of this landmark programming.

There is significant social bias against adoption in America today, despite the fact that adoption is a growing method of family building. The inaccurate old myths and stigmas are still harbored by many Americans. Consequently, adoption continues to suffer from the legacy of secrecy and shame that was adoption in the past.

Enhancing the understanding of adoption has serious social implications. Our web site (www.adoptioninformationinstitute.org) includes a document entitled Why Should You Understand Adoption? It recounts the social costs of allowing the myths and stigma surrounding adoption to continue. I hope you will take a minute to review it.

Your series not only lifted the veil on every facet of adoption, it normalized adoption and those touched by it. It also put adoption into context with the complex feelings and experiences of all families, allowing viewers to understand that there is little difference between adoptive and biological parenting. The joys and challenges are much the same. That context was lacking in adoption coverage until your series.

Its most poignant lessons came from birth parents, who are, perhaps, the most maligned and misunderstood of triad members. Those in the series were eloquent examples, dramatically showing that, in deciding that their best may not be good enough for their child, they have met the very definition of what it is to be a parent. There can be no denying that they were as real as it gets in deserving the title "parent." Even the program covering the young woman who decided to parent, illustrated that her decision was the right one.

One of the most insightful episodes, tracked a reunion story, with all three triad members discussing their emotional journey. This program covered a senior in high school as he searched for his birth mother. His warm relationship with his parents was evident in their support of his quest. Their excitement at his success was clearly tempered by their fear about losing something in the process; about what this new relationship would do to their family. His adoptive mother realized with great surprise that she was having difficulty sharing her son. It was clear that the new path this family would forge together would take time, illustrating that reunion does not mean hearts and flowers but an emotional realignment of everybody involved no matter how hard they work to avoid hurt.

The series' ability to bring waiting children out from behind their labels was one of its most important contributions. If you listened to the parents, one thing is perfectly clear. These children have brought inestimable joy to their lives. If you listened to the children of foster care, you heard more than a litany of their circumstances, but the simple desire to have a family of their own.

The coverage of adoption disruptions also provided an important service. Indeed, this series constitutes a valuable training tool for agencies working with both prospective parents and birth parents, many of whom remain unconvinced as to the value of pre-adoption education and post-adoption services. Already agencies have requested copies of the tape, no doubt for exactly that. It is a low-cost solution to the training issue, only requiring one other ingredient ­ time. This series illustrates the value of such work in both preparing those who would be touched by adoption and in convincing parents that, while adoption may be a one-time, legal event, raising an adopted child brings with it a need for post-adoption services, if for no other reason than to teach them to cope with the social bias against adoption.

I know you have received many kudos for this series, including one from the Congressional Coalition on Adoption, the award ceremony for which I attended in September. I just wanted to add my own congratulations and thanks for partnering with Robert Halmi on this important work.

Sincerely yours,

Kathryn B. Creedy
Executive Director, Institute for Adoption Information

January 10, 2003

John Hayes
Executive Vice President
Global Brand & Advertising
American Express
World Financial Center
200 Vesey St
Mail Code 01-5007
New York, NY 10285

Dear Mr. Hayes,

I am writing to congratulate you on your American Express ad depicting a couple adopting from China.

This letter will attempt to tell you what it means to those who have been touched by adoption to see adoption included in such a positive way in the media. Your advertisement goes a long way in the inclusion of non-traditional families, helping people understand that, while they may be different, they are just as worthy of respect and understanding as the traditional family. As you so rightly showed, it is one of the crowning moments of our lives and we are justly proud of how our families came into being.

The importance of this ad cannot be underestimated since it also enables viewers to understand how adoption is changing not only the American family but America itself. There are 20,000 international adoptions annually, many of which are trans-racial adoptions. Your ad shows that families don't always look like one another and that is okay. While all adoptions deeply enrich our families, trans-racial adoptions add new components to our families as we weave our childrens' culture, race, country and heritage into our traditions and observances.

I hope your ad may also help others consider adopting a child especially the 134,000 now waiting in foster care for permanent families. Many of these children are children of color. If you listen to the parents of those who have been adopted one thing is perfectly clear. These children have brought inestimable joy to their lives, just as your ad depicted for the couple adopting from China. If you listen to the children of foster care, you hear more than a litany of their circumstances, but the simple desire to have a family of their own.

In addition to providing an increased understanding for those touched by adoption, depicting adoption in a positive light has serious social implications. Our web site (www.adoptioninformationinstitute.org) includes a document entitled Why Should You Understand Adoption? It recounts the social costs of allowing the myths and stigma surrounding adoption to continue. I hope you will take a minute to review it.

Thank you again for your wonderful ad.

Sincerely yours,

Kathryn B. Creedy
Executive Director, Institute for Adoption Information

cc. The Team at Ogilvy Mather
Lynn Dangel
Jennifer Scibilia
Alice Mintzer
Shelly Lazarus
Steve Hayden

January 13, 2003

Daniel Carp, Chair & CEO
Eastman Kodak Company
343 State Street
Rochester, NY 14654

Dear Mr. Carp,

Recently, I chanced upon your print ad depicting a couple returning home after having adopted. I am writing to congratulate you. To my knowledge only a handful of companies now include the adoptive family in advertising including: American Express, Wendy's and Hallmark.

Your advertisement goes a long way in the inclusion of non-traditional families, helping people understand that, while they may be different, they are just as worthy of respect and understanding as the traditional family. As you so rightly showed, adoption is one of the crowning moments of our lives and we are justly proud of how our families came into being.

The importance of this ad cannot be underestimated since it also enables viewers to understand how adoption is changing not only the American family but America itself. There are 20,000 international adoptions annually, many of which are trans-racial adoptions. Your ad shows that families don't always look like one another and that is okay. While all adoptions deeply enrich our families, trans-racial adoptions add new facets to our families as we weave our childrens' culture, race, country and heritage into our traditions and observances.

I hope your ad may also help others consider adopting a child especially the 134,000 now waiting in foster care for permanent families. Many of these children are children of color. If you listen to the parents of those who have been adopted one thing is perfectly clear. These children have brought inestimable joy to their lives, just as your ad depicted for the couple adopting from China. If you listen to the children of foster care, you hear more than a litany of their circumstances, but the simple desire to have a family of their own.

In addition to providing an increased understanding for those touched by adoption, depicting adoption in a positive light has serious social implications. Our web site (www.adoptioninformationinstitute.org) includes a document entitled Why Should You Understand Adoption? It recounts the social costs of allowing the myths and stigma surrounding adoption to continue. I hope you will take a minute to review it.

Thank you again for your wonderful ad. I hope you will pass along this letter to your advertising department as well as its agency.

Sincerely yours,

Kathryn B. Creedy
Executive Director, Institute for Adoption Information

19 March 2003
San Francisco Zoo
1 Zoo Road
San Francisco, CA 94132

RE: RESPECT ADOPTION

As an adoptive parent and passionate advocate of adoption, I was disappointed and saddened to see the following announcement on your website:

ADOPT-AN-ANIMAL
Looking for a unique and "wild?" gift for a business associate, friend, family member or
loved one?

Such cavalier use of the word adoption suggests ­ particularly to children, who make up a sizable portion of your visitors ­ that adoption is a short-term commitment of money to a cause, not a lifelong commitment of parents to children. The "adopt-an-animal" marketing ploy creates confusion in the minds of adopted children and their non-adopted peers, encouraging predictable (and avoidable) teasing and taunts equating our children with wild animals and questioning the permanence of our families. It diminishes a wonderful, life-affirming, permanent way to form a family that deserves your respect.

Adoption is not sponsorship. It is a permanent commitment. For those of us touched by adoption, we know that adoption is forever, and we cringe when the word is used in an ostensibly child-friendly institution as a fundraising gimmick. Adoption is a legal, sacred bond that forms a loving family equal in every way to families formed through birth. Adoption is just another way to build a family, one of which we are justly proud. Why does the SF Zoo undermine us and our children in this
thoughtless way?

Lest you think we are oversensitive, let me stress that language is important. The way we describe such things as adoption tells us, and our children?, how society really feels. While we see such things as "adopt-a-highway," "adopt-an-animal," and even "adopt-a-pothole," such usage does not make it right and only underscores society's ignorance.
Some adults may understand that you are just being cute. Young children will take you at your word.

The National Zoo solved this problem decades ago by calling their program Friends of the National Zoo. The Oakland Zoo recently responded to adoptive parents' requests and changed their program to Sponsor-an-Animal. Clearly, this is not a new concern but one that we continually face. Some organizations "get it" and make the switch to more accurate and respectful language. When will the SF Zoo get it?

There are thousands of adoptive families in the San Francisco area. Indeed, one-third of the nation is touched by adoption within their immediate families. It is a growing way to build a family, and it is changing the face of the American family as a result.

We in the adoption community understand that the use of adoption language in fundraising is born of ignorance, and it is up to us to educate. By writing this letter, I hope that you will take our concern to heart and finally, after so many years of having this problem brought to your attention, get it--and fix it.

We ask that you respect adopted children and adoptive families by using the appropriate word to describe your program: Sponsor-an-Animal. We look forward to hearing that you have reconsidered your past resistance to change and are now willing to hear us, validate our concerns, and respect our children.

When that day comes, my husband, daughter, and I will be pleased to join the San Francisco Zoo at the family level. We'll even sponsor an animal.

Sincerely yours,
Amy Klatzkin
449 SECOND AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94118

Contributing Editor, Adoptive Families Magazine (www.adoptivefamilies.com)
Editor, Families with Children from China National Newsletter (www.fwcc.org)
Board member, Families Adopting in Response (www.fairfamilies.org)
Co-Chair, The Foundation for Chinese Orphanages (www.thefco.org)
Board member, Chinese Culture Foundation of San Francisco (www.c-c-c.org)

Encl: Excerpts from NYTimes.com: uses of adoption in advertising that support rather than undermine adoptive families!

March 19, 2003

Adoptive Families Get Starring Role

By ABBY ELLIN

In a recent Lands' End catalog, a fresh-faced family lolls in the back of a pickup truck, dressed in fleece jackets, woolen caps and mittens. But this is not your typical American family; one of the children being held by the Caucasian parents is Asian, and adopted.

While adoption is not an especially foreign concept in American life (by some estimates there are nearly six million adopted people in the United States), the advertising industry has done little to reflect the numbers. That is beginning to change. Images of adoptive families are becoming a familiar sight in print advertisements and television commercials for companies and brands as varied as Weight Watchers, Ikea, J. C. Penney, Tide, Merrill Lynch and John Hancock.

... advertisers did not deem the audience large enough to merit representation or, at least, not one that was worth catering to. And the majority of the portrayals that did exist were not positive.

"My research has shown that in the past, media representations of adoption are five to one negative, focusing on the differences that adoption creates," said Beth M. Waggenspack, associate professor...

... "Adoption is an emotion-packed symbol capable of provoking uneasy responses, for, in the public's mind, terms associated with adoption are generally negative: orphan, foundling, illegitimate, bastard, unwanted. Ads that show adopted families living normal lives, doing laundry, working on taxes, going to a theme park, can play a significant role in altering society's perception about the positive aspects of adoption as a form of family building."

This segment of the population is also becoming more upscale. ... About 88 percent of the 150,000 readers of Adoptive Families Magazine are college graduates, with a median income of $85,000.

..."Advertisers have finally figured out that this is a demographic that exists," said Adam Pertman, the executive director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, in New York and author of "Adoption Nation: How the Adoption Revolution Is Transforming America."

"People are discovering that America isn't one singular type of family they're used to representing," he said. "Our country is changing, and adopting is a powerful prism through which to see what really are the changes we're going through. There are all sorts of parents ­ single, gay, multiracial, lesbian ­ that constitute the real America...."

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company