AdopTalk

ASK AMY

Saturday, June 24, 2006; Page C08

Dear Amy:

My brother-in-law and his wife are adopting a child from another country.

The couple has created a Web site about the impending arrival of their child. They are planning a baby shower.

What seems strange to me and my husband about the excitement surrounding this adoption is that the couple also has requested financial donations from friends and family, including setting up a PayPal account to expedite these donations.

We are aware of the costs associated with an international adoption, but such donations to finance it seem something of an affront to us.

My husband and I are very proud of their decision, as they are unable to conceive. Nothing is more life-affirming than providing a stable home for a child, regardless of country of origin.

I suppose it is the request for money that has us concerned.

As the parents of two children, we understand how much it costs to feed, clothe and educate a child.

How can we relate this to them without squelching their excitement about the adoption?

A Concerned Relative

AMY'S REPLY: Your husband should have a discreet conversation with his brother that can start something along the lines: "I'm worried that you and Sandy can't afford this adoption. Is everything okay?"

As you point out, one problem with this is that the expenses of child-rearing only begin once the child is brought home. If a couple can't finance the mechanics of having a child (whether through the high cost of fertility treatments or of overseas adoptions), then perhaps they should wait for the blessed event until they are more financially secure. Domestic adoptions can be far less expensive, and if this couple hasn't considered adopting an American-born child, then they should.

Raising money in this fashion is a step way above and beyond gathering gifts (financial and otherwise) through a baby shower. Either this couple is very hard up for money or they feel entitled to use their child's adoption as a way to raise funds.

Either answer isn't good.

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

This response evoked the following opinion:

The birth of a really bad argument

http://www.insidebayarea.com/bayarealiving/ci_4005451

THE STANDARD M.O. as a journalist is that you have your colleagues' backs: You read their stuff, they read your stuff, and if either of you don't like each other's stuff, you just keep your mouth shut. You turn the page, wipe the newsprint off your hand, check out how inane Family Circus is and go on with your day.

And before the M.O. police fire up their e-mail, I will quickly point out that the one-'l'ed Bil Keane is not my colleague, and my conscience is clear when I say Family Circus long, long ago tickled its last funny bone.

Anyway, those are the unspoken rules. And now that I've spoken them, you will understand why I'm about to take a sledgehammer to "Ask Amy," the advice column that appears in this newspaper, and in particular the "Ask Amy" column that appeared June 24 with the headline "Adoption fund shill."

See, Amy doesn't work here. Amy works for the Chicago Tribune. Amy's asking and answering is done from the Windy City. Amy just gets her queries and responses reprinted in my employer's newspaper on a syndicated basis.

Amy is no colleague of mine.

So I don't think it's unfair when I say Amy really whiffed last week.

But first, let me back up. I can't take credit for noticing Amy's horrible at-bat in real time. See, I'll read her stuff occasionally, but, as has been established, she's not my colleague and I'm not religious about it.

Instead, Amy's effort from last week was pointed out to me by a fellow Oakland reader. She wanted to remain anonymous, though, so from here on out, I'll refer to her as Dolly, in a vain attempt to keep Bil Keane on my good side in case he's reading this too.

At any rate, Dolly read the first letter in Amy's column, from "AConcerned Relative," who was up in arms that her brother-in-law and his wife, who were unable to conceive, were adopting a child from another country and were asking friends and relatives if they'd like to help with a financial donation.

"Concerned" was worried that her brother-in-law was over his head, since "Concerned," who had two children produced from her own womb, knew how much it costs to feed, clothe and educate children. "Concerned" was fretting that her in-law just didn't know how important money was.

As it turns out, Amy, in her infinite wisdom, agreed "Concerned" should be, well, concerned. She offered that if the couple can't finance "the mechanics of having a child," maybe they should wait for the "blessed event until they are more financially secure." She also seemed to think "Concerned's" in-laws were trying to glam up the adoption process by going out of country, saying domestic adoptions can be far less expensive and that, indeed, the woman's in-laws probably didn't realize how important money was.

Well, Dolly read that column and her blood absolutely boiled. As a woman who's struggled with fertility issues for years and is a member of Resolve, a national infertility organization, Dolly was all but certain that those adopting, infertile in-laws knew more about the value of money than "Concerned" and Amy combined.

Steaming, Dolly contacted me, knowing I would relate. See, I've been diagnosed with the extremely vague "unexplained infertility" and for the last couple of years have been doing all sorts of unnatural things to achieve the most natural order of the world: To become a mother.

-----------

to be continued....