On that story about the little adopted boy who died when his overweight Mom

fell on him: “Dear Sir—When my wife and I adopted our kids from private,

non-profit, church sponsored agencies we had to:

–be fingerprinted by local, state, and federal law enforcement for

background checks,

–be employed,

–earn above a minimum level,

–have excellent credit,

–provide detailed and documented financial and employment histories

–have our home inspected and certified safe and healthy

–live in an area with good medical services and low crime rates

–pass comprehensive physicals, including HIV tests

–pass several interviews/inspections by social workers (plus follow-ups)

–obtain four referrals from reputable, non-related, public figures

(minister, profs etc.)

–have relatives capable of caring for the children in the event we were

incapacitated

“Obviously the mom of that poor child in the report, while she surely loved

him, could not have satisfied all the above. Most likely the child was

placed by a state/government agency with (typically) lax enforcement of

standards. It’s also possible that the child, being black, was only to be

placed with a black parent. There is considerable opposition to placing

black kids with whites (‘cultural genocide’ and all that). Consequently,

many black kids often go to whomever is available, or move through a series

of foster homes until they reach majority.”

I must say, the whole business of adoption is very puzzling. I know four

adopter families (3 married couples, 1 single woman). All adopted kids from

the Far East — China, Vietnam — at immense trouble and expense. Yet there

seem to be categories of people who can adopt American kids with very little

trouble at all: homosexual couples (e.g. Mrs. and Mrs. Rosie O’Donnell),

and people like the unfortunate Ms. Hines.

Is there a Political Correctness litmus test for adopters?