National Coalition For Child Protection Reform - Responds to Statements From National CASA Association and Caliber Associates

National Coalition For Child Protection Reform - Responds to Statements From National CASA Association and Caliber Associates
Posted: 31 Dec 2009 09:52 PM PST
NATIONAL COALITION FOR CHILD PROTECTION REFORM

53 Skyhill Road (Suite 202) / Alexandria, Virginia, 22314
Phone and Fax: (703) 212-2006 / e-mail: info@nccpr.org / www.nccpr.org
For release: For further information,
contact:
Immediate Richard Wexler, Executive
Director (703) 212-2006 /
www.ncpr.org

NCCPR RESPONDS TO STATEMENTS FROM NATIONAL CASA
ASSOCIATION AND CALIBER ASSOCIATES

ALEXANDRIA VA. (June 23) – Richard Wexler, Executive Director of
the National Coalition for Child Protection Reform, issued the following
statement today in response to documents released by the National CASA
Association and Caliber Associates:

The National CASA Association has launched a desperate campaign of damage control in an effort to spin a study commissioned by the group itself. But no matter how desperately National CASA tries to divert attention, the organization can’t evade the key findings from its own study:

Children with CASAs were nearly five times more likely to be in foster care than children without CASAs.

Yet children without CASAs were found to be just as well off – and just as safe – as children with CASAs.

Thus, we conclude that the only real accomplishment of CASA is to encourage the needless removal of children from their homes.

BACKGROUND:

At its annual convention earlier this month the National CASA Association issued a summary of the most comprehensive study ever done of the program. It was commissioned by National CASA itself and conducted by Caliber Associates.

NCCPR put out a press release contending that while CASA volunteers are dedicated and mean well, in general the CASA program does no good and may well do harm. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote a story about the study.

National CASA subsequently released the full study, though it is hard to find on CASAs website. National CASA also put out a statement and Caliber put out a response to the NCCPR press release. Links to both were included in a weekly news summary on the website of the National Center for Adoption Law and Policy. NCALP broke with its longstanding practice of using these e-mails solely to send links to news stories in order to rush to CASAs defense.

THE BEST WAY TO EVALUATE THE CASA STUDY: READ IT.

Before getting into specifics about the comments from National CASA and the researchers, however, NCCPR suggests a simple way to settle the matter: People should read the full study for themselves and draw their own conclusions. National CASA has posted the study on one of its websites – though it requires an extremely diligent search to find it. (If the study is as favorable, or at least as neutral, as CASA claims, it’s hard to understand why CASA doesn’t make the study easy to find by posting it prominently on both of its websites). At the moment, the study can be reached directly via this link:

http://www.casanet.org/download/casasurveys/caliber_casa_report_representation.pdf

RESPONSE TO THE STATEMENT FROM CALIBER

The firm hired by National CASA to do the study, Caliber Associates, has prepared a “response” to a press release from NCCPR.

In the document, Caliber responds to our contention that the study does nothing to improve the lives of children and may do harm, by declaring that “as far as we are concerned the most critical facts about the well being of children with and without CASA volunteers” are that the children most in need of a CASA got one and that these children are at very high risk of poor outcomes “when they first enter the program.”

NCCPR’S RESPONSE: We don’t dispute either of these points. But neither tells us if the CASA, once assigned, does any good. We believe that other study findings indicate that, in general, CASA does no good and may do harm. Caliber complains that NCCPR didn’t note that children and parents who received CASAs got more services.

NCCPR’s RESPONSE: There is no indication that the increased services actually improved outcomes. Indeed, the same study also asked caseworkers to assess the percentage of parent and child needs met in cases with and without CASAs. They found “no significant difference,” suggesting that the additional services didn’t do any good. Caliber omits this from its response to NCCPR.

The researchers quote the following from NCCPR’s original press release. “Most important, there was no difference in ‘exposure to violence and maltreatment.” In “response” Caliber takes this quote out of context, implying that it is a reference to the children’s backgrounds before any intervention. In fact, this statement specifically refers to the children’s status after intervention,
comparing children whose intervention included a CASA and those whose intervention did not include a CASA. The results are shown in the study itself, in Table 26, and they do, indeed, show no difference in exposure to violence and maltreatment.

Caliber’s comments here are related to the straw CASA has been trying to grasp since the report’s findings became public: the claim that all the differences are due to the fact that CASAs handle more difficult cases. But Caliber went to enormous lengths to adjust for this in order to come up with an apples-to-apples comparison. On page 40, the report lists eight separate variables for which they adjusted. The report then states: “Inclusion of these variables means that the percentages and mean scores presented in this section indicate the outcomes that would be expected of children who did and did not have a CASA volunteer if the two groups had similar demographic characteristics and prior experiences.” [Emphasis added].

The authors of the report also include a section speculating that, because the results were so surprising they must not have done a good enough job in adjusting for severity. But this is circular reasoning. The argument, essentially, is that “the results are so bad for CASA that we must have measured wrong.” They also cite “tests” they performed in an effort to confirm this. Again, NCCPR suggests that readers examine the report for themselves to evaluate the plausibility of this argument.

We believe the more plausible explanation is that the results reflect racial and class bias built into the CASA model itself. And rather than suggesting flawed methodology, the size of the differences suggests the extent of the bias. Even if one believes that the comparison between the two groups is not perfect, is it implausible that such imperfection would account for the fact that the children with CASAs were nearly five times more likely to be in foster care than the
children without CASAs, and yet there was no difference in safety and well-being outcomes.

Furthermore, if Caliber’s explanation is to be believed, why doesn’t it apply to the so-called “good news” about CASA? Why isn’t the fact that children who have CASAs get more services also simply a function of their cases being more severe?

Please note that NCCPR included Caliber’s explanation, and our response, in our original press release. Caliber, in contrast, has taken NCCPR’s release out of context.

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM NATIONAL CASA

In an unsigned statement, attributed to CASA CEO Michael Piraino, found via a link on the website of the National Center for Adoption Law and Policy, CASA relies almost exclusively on the claim that all negative or “neutral” findings can be attributed to the fact that CASAs handle more severe cases. The statement does not acknowledge the strenuous efforts of the researchers to control for this.

The statement also makes some interesting comments on some other issues:

Concerning the surprisingly low number of hours per month CASAs report spending on their cases, CASA claims that the volunteers actually spend more time, but don’t bother to write it down “…and the last thing we want to do is turn [volunteers] into data input people.”

That’s exactly what poorly- functioning child welfare agencies say when issues are raised about whether caseworkers actually performed required tasks – such as visiting children. “Oh, we’re sure they did it,” we are told. “They just didn’t have time to write it down.”

This also doesn’t explain why, according to the report “cases involving African- American children were associated with over an hour less volunteer time each month…” [emphasis added].

It seems unlikely that volunteers dealing with cases involving African-American children consistently were less likely to fill out time logs. Furthermore, this section of the CASA statement contains a significant factual error. The statement claims the researchers found only that workers spent less time per child in cases involving African-American children. It goes on to
speculate that maybe these families had more children. The CASA statement then poses the question: “Is there a difference in time spent per case?” [Emphasis in original].

But the study itself already supplies the answer, and the answer is yes. Indeed, the study refers to less time per child and less time per case in cases involving African-American children. For example, on page 22, the study says: “The mean number of hours spent on African-American children’s cases was 2.67 versus 4.30 for children of other races.” [Emphasis added]. The CASA statement also goes on to cite a different study, a “National CASA Consumer Satisfaction Survey.”

But the CASA statement leaves out some important findings from this survey, which is available here: http://www.casanet.org/download/casasurveys/CS-survey- final-report-09-03.pdf

· The study included a number of open-ended questions, in which
respondents had to write comments rather than check boxes. In their responses, so
many caseworkers singled out concerns about class and cultural bias in CASAs
that the researcher felt compelled to acknowledge it as a “theme” in survey
comments.

As the author acknowledges, this was not a study of a random cross-section of CASA programs; rather these programs volunteered. That makes it likely that these programs are better than typical CAS A programs.

People who have bad experiences with a program generally are less likely to respond to surveys about it. Thus, those who didn’t fill out the survey forms probably would have given CASA lower ratings. This is especially significant in light of the low response rate from parents, compared with other groups.

Even with all these factors biasing the study in favor of CASA, one of the two questions where, comparatively, CASA “consistently scored low” concerned CASAs’ objectivity.

Though it is not statistically significant, birth parents gave CASAs lower ratings on every single question except one. The one exception is that birth parents say CASAs have more influence on the court -- hardly a compliment.

If CASAs truly were objective, views of birth parent attorneys and children’s attorneys should be similar. In fact, birth parent attorneys gave CASAs lower ratings on every question except two – and most of the time, these differences are statistically significant.

The survey asks respondents to give an example of something a CASA did that was helpful. There is no request for an example of something a CASA did that was harmful. (Although it is interesting to note that on the “something helpful” question enough people specifically wrote the word “nothing” as opposed to just leaving it blank, for this to emerge as a “theme.”)

CONCLUSION

The two studies combined are a clear indictment of the CASA model. But rather than heed the warnings, CASA is burying its head in the sand. Of course some individual CASAs do some good for some children. There are undoubtedly some good CASA programs. And, as we emphasized in our original statement, we do not question the dedication or motivation of CASA
volunteers. But the two studies combined suggest that, on balance, CASA does more harm than good and needs radical reform. At a minimum, these studies should be a wake-up call for the constituency that, according to the “Consumer Satisfaction Survey,” appears least willing to show any skepticism about CASA: Judges. They need to be far more willing to question CASAs closely about how they reach their conclusions and far less prone to rubber-stamp CASA
recommendations.

CASA Data Collection and Evaluation

Data Collection and Evaluation
Collecting and analyzing data enables National CASA and CASA programs to assess our efforts and ultimately improve our services to children. The following surveys, summaries and reports demonstrate constituent satisfaction with CASA and GAL programs.

2008 State Organization Survey Report (PDF)

2007 State Organization Survey Report (PDF)

2008 Local Program Survey Report (PDF)
2007 Local Program Survey Report (PDF)

Caliber Evaluation of CASA Representation Report (PDF)

Judges and Attorney Survey of Volunteer CASA/GALs (PDF): Judges value CASA volunteers but need more of them.

Consumer Satisfaction Survey: A 2003 survey measuring satisfaction with CASA volunteers among parents, judges, child protection workers, child protection supervisors and attorneys

Full Report (PDF)
Executive Summary (PDF)

CASA Effectiveness Manual
The purpose of this manual is to provide CASA programs with an easy to use system for tracking information necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of programs. Emphasis is placed on how to write and measure goals related to child-outcomes. The manual includes easy to follow definitions, instructions, tracking forms and sample surveys.

Introduction
Part 1: Writing and measuring child outcomes and process goals
Part 2: Tracking volunteer and program activities
Part 3: Collecting information regarding outcomes and activities
Part 4: Conducting surveys
Part 5: Using information collected to write reports

http://www.casaforchildren.org/site/c.mtJSJ7MPIsE/b.5466423/k.16B4/Data_Collection_and_Evaluation.htm

Alex Jones discusses Secret Society depopulation scheme with Jesse Ventura

Alex Jones discusses Secret Society depopulation scheme with Jesse Ventura

‘Conspiracy Theory’ authority Alex Jones explains the motives for and inner-workings towards a depopulation scheme that aims to eliminate some 80%+ of the current human population. Powerful globalists inside the Bilderberg group, along with the Big Pharma, Big Agra and vaccine cartels are working towards lowering sterility and attacking the immune system…


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Possibly related posts: (automatically generated

http://tobefree.wordpress.com/2009/12/31/alex-jones-appearance-on-the-excellent-secret-societies-episode-of-conspiracy-theory-with-jesse-ventura/

Bildeburgers Group and Jesse Ventura Conspiracy Theory

Bildeburgers Group and Jesse Ventura Conspiracy Theory
By jayita, Gaea News NetworkDecember 31st, 2009

LOS ANGELES (GaeaTimes.com) — On Wednesday night, truTV’s Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura featured the Bilderberg Group. The Bilderberg Group or Bilderberg Club is an unofficial, annual, conference, consisting of 130 invited guests. The guests include only great personalities from the field of politics, banking, business and media. They discuss about wars, oil prices, economic downturns, etc.

Each year the group meets secretly in a hotel under intense security. The meeting took place twice in Europe, followed by Canada and Chantilly,Virginia. The 2009 Bilderberg meeting was held in Athens, Greece.

Because of its secrecy and refusal to issue news releases, the group is frequently accused of secretive and nefarious world plots.

No reporters are invited in and while confidential minutes of meetings are taken, names are not noted… In the void created by such aloofness, an extraordinary conspiracy theory has grown up around the group that alleges the fate of the world is largely decided by Bilderberg.

- BBC News reported.

Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura is alleging that the Bilderberg Group (along with seven masterminds above them) wants to wipe out much of humanity through poisoned vaccines (like H1N1) and food additives (like Aspartame).

What do you think are they really powerful to control lots of big issues of our small world?
http://blog.taragana.com/e/2009/12/31/bildeburgers-group-and-jesse-ventura-conspiracy-theory-75622/

Child abusers win one in the 9th Circuit

Child abusers win one in the 9th Circuit
Share this storyBuzz up! Share THE NEWS TRIBUNE
Published: 12/30/09 12:05 am

Recommend (5)A new federal court decision is creating ripples in the world of child-abuse protection. They aren’t good ripples.

Ruling earlier this month in an Oregon case, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals imposed tight new restrictions on investigations of suspected child abuse – restrictions that tip the balance of power in favor of the suspected abusers.

The judges held that Oregon’s equivalent of Child Protective Services violated the Fourth Amendment when one of its caseworkers and a deputy sheriff took a girl aside at school and asked whether her father had been fondling her. The ruling’s implication is that they should have obtained a warrant – or the permission of her parents – before doing so.

Washington’s Children’s Administration is scrambling to comply with this brand-new and rather astonishing requirement. Pierce County Prosecutor Mark Lindquist says it will “seriously handicap” investigations. He also points out that it will make it tougher not only to quickly identify child abuse, but also to rule it out. A boy who shows up to school with suspicious bruises may have gotten them from his mother’s live-in boyfriend – or a fall from a tree. It’s important to find out, fast, what’s going on.

Probable cause – which must be established to get a warrant –often can’t be determined before talking to a child. Teachers, for example, frequently develop an acute sixth sense about the possibility of abuse, based on subtle changes in a student’s behavior, eye contact, mood and classroom performance. But try persuading a judge that Billy’s sudden quietness and tendency to look at his shoes is evidence that a crime has been committed.

The alternative is asking the possible abuser – or the partner who may be covering for the abuser – for permission to question the child. Great idea.

One absurdity at the heart of the 9th Circuit’s opinion is the notion that investigators are somehow violating the child’s constitutional rights when they talk to him or her at school without such permission. That turns the Fourth Amendment on its head. The guarantee against “unreasonable searches and seizures” is designed to protect suspects and criminal defendants. It’s not designed to prevent abuse victims from talking about their abuse.

In any case, the Fourth Amendment forbids arbitrary searches of the home and other spheres of privacy, such as the interiors of automobiles. Just as abuse victims are not suspects, schools are not spheres of privacy. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a teacher can snatch a purse away from a girl suspected of smoking in a lavatory – an inconceivable decision if a school were the equivalent of a house. The difference, says the 9th Circuit, is that the state has a “special need” to prevent smoking that was “not present” in the Oregon abuse case.

There we have it: The government doesn’t need a warrant to seize the personal effects of a girl suspected of wrongdoing at school; it does need a warrant to ask a girl whether she’s getting molested at home. Great jurisprudence, that. This foolish decision must be reversed, and fast. (I don't agree with this statement. Parents and childrens constitutional rights are violated every day by CPS and the courts)

http://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/editorials/story/1010325.html

The Declaration of Independence

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

— John Hancock

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

Adoption is legalized child trafficking

Adoption is legalized child trafficking
Tue, 2009-12-22 15:36 - Niels
Iris Pronk/Trouw
December 22, 2009
Translated from original Dutch article

Adoption is legalized child trafficking, say Roelie Post and Arun Dohle. Together they founded Against Child Trafficking. If it is up to them, inter-country adoption disappears in five years time.

On the wall of their office in Brussels is a large world map with green, red and blue dots. Green for the 'open' adoption countries, red for the countries that closed the doors. And blue ones representing the regions which Roelie Post (49) and Arun Dohle (36) have so far examined: Malawi, Ethiopia, China, Peru and India.

Their goal is a "red world": five years from now inter-country adoptions should have been stopped. According to them, it is "legalized trade of children”, where vulnerable children are exchanged for large sums of money. Their description of adoption has, John Le Carré-like features: stolen babies, unscrupulous traders, cheating orphanage directors and forged adoption procedures. This is, as they say, the rule.

To make this "commerce" visible and to frustrate it, Post and Dohle, together founded Against Child Trafficking (ACT). In their office, located in Post's basement, the two make long days: "And often the phone rings here at three at night”.

The researchers collected information about bad or dubious adoption cases, partially through the Internet. Their database is growing day by day: "We talk to adoptive parents, adoptees, lawyers and professors from around the world." When they stumble upon a case of kidnapped children or other doubtful cases, they inform the adoption agencies and ministries.

That hasn't made them popular in the inner circles of adoption. Bertie Treur, Director of Stichting Kind en Toekomst, heaves a sigh at the sound of the names 'Post' and 'Dohle'. "We are very committed to ethical adoptions, "she says. "These people are looking for evil. I think it troubling that they assume that adoption agencies act randomly."

In turn, Post and Dohle hold little regard of the agencies, which cooperate in a system they have experienced as sick and corrupt. They see most governments in a negative light too, because time and again, they succumb to the powerful lobby of (prospective) adoptive parents. Their desire to have children is leading, say the two, not the interests of the child.

Against those powerful forces, they conduct their guerrilla fight. Post devotes her time to policy and children's rights, while Dohle is the researcher in the field. With a suitcase full of dossiers, he regularly gets on a plain, for example to Ethiopia or India to check the background of adoptees. It is not like the "Spoorloos Method”, says Post. "That TV program brings biological and adoptive parents children back together and that's that. While we think justice must prevail."

Dohle was closely involved in some of the recent high-profile adoption incidents. He worked on the Netwerk broadcast on 'Rahul', the boy who was stolen from his Indian parents at eighteen month, and who is possibly adoption by a Dutch family. Dohle brought the biological parents in contact with a lawyer, whom has for years requested the Dutch adoptive parents for a DNA test, so far unsuccessfully.

Dohle and Post, in collaboration with a local human rights organization, also managed to thwart Madonna. The Court of Malawi first refused her adoption of Chifundo 'Mercy' James, because she is not a resident of Malawi, as the law demands. The Judge based his decision on knowledge provided by Dohle, he says. In second instance the U.S. megastar could eventually got the girl. Post laments: "That´s how adoption works. It's all about money, money, money."

Then there was the recent revelation of adoption agency Wereldkinderen that Ethiopian 'orphans', adopted by Dutch parents, appear to have Ethiopian parents that are very much alive. The agency based its conclusions upon a study done by ACT. As a result Wereldkinderen temporarily stopped adoptions from Ethiopia.

Dohle and Post's indignation is great, their position clear: Inter-country adoption is not a "last resort" for children in the need, but a lucrative market that serves involuntarily childless couples. Adoption has little to do with 'child protection', they say. Those really wanting to help, should invest in a local child protection, and provide care to poor parents, to prevent relinquishment of children.

Recent cases of child trafficking for adoption are not incidents, the two claim. But can they prove that?

Yes, say Post and Dohle: they have so far investigated over one hundred adoption cases and found irregularities in all of them, ranging form abduction of children to wrong files, based on which local judges approved an adoption. "It is a crime to dis-inform the court."

And sometimes the paper work is correct, but mothers didn't know what they signed for. Dohle: "They do not understand what it means to waive their parental rights. They think they can take their child back in their arms, when it reaches age 18"

But: over one hundred acts of wrong-doing, does not show that the approximately 36,000 inter-country adoptions per year are not done well. They do not provide evidence of large-scale corruption and crime. Post sighs deeply at this conclusion: "How much more evidence do you need?" She calls it turning the world upside down: "The adoption agencies should provide evidence that their adoptions are ethical. But that they can and will not do. These agencies stay inactive, they don't investigate anything. Their records are often so vague, you wouldn't buy a second hand car based upon them."

But a messy file does not yet indicate child trafficking or unethical adoption? Post: "The biggest problem is that parents who consider relinquishing their child, for example because they have no money for food, usually don't receive any alternative help. No coaching, no loan, no other recourse but relinquishment and adoption. Adoption Agencies have all sorts of aid projects, but those are intended for other families, not for parents that potentially relinquish. "

Doesn't the evil Dohle and Post are convinced of, not color their perception? "If only that were true," says Post. "We are not against adoption, but against child trafficking. Unfortunately those two can not be distinguished from one another."

Who are the adoption fighters?

Roelie Post acquired her knowledge about adoption in Romania, where she worked on behalf of the European Commission, for many years. She saw crowded orphanages and aggressive foreign adoption agencies running their "Legalized child trafficking". "The supply was made to match the high demand," Post says. In her book "Romania. For export only. The untold story of the Romanian orphans' (2007) she reports about her experiences.

Together with the Romanian authorities, the European Commission, closed the major children's homes and established a system of child protection, that takes care of Romanian children in their own country. But an active lobby kept pressing for the 'export' of Romanian children, which Post strongly opposes.

That lobby made her work for the European Commission impossible Post said. She was finally seconded to Against Child Trafficking (ACT), an organization she founded herself. "I've seen children get sucked into the system, instead of helping them," she says. "I must share my knowledge about adoption, that is my social responsibility. Nobody else comes up for these children."

Post found a supporter: Arun Dohle, an Indian who was adopted by German parents. Dohle has been doing research into his own roots from India, for years. He suspects that he is an illegitimate child of a member of the famous Pawar family. Before the court of Bombay, Dohle demanded the identity of his mother to be revealed, but the case so far is hindered by "the power of the family". His quest became a true Indian media hype. "Son of Pawar wants to know who his mother is," the newspapers headlined.

"I discovered my adoption is complete shit, the paperwork is nothing but a bunch of lies," says Dohle. "Nowhere in my file is a waiver of parental rights, signed by my mother. I think they took me away from her under duress." Dohle also examined some hundred adoption files from other adoptees, which according to him, all contain irregularities.

http://poundpuplegacy.org/node/41521