Kiddobeans

Sunscreen: Not Just for the "Pigment-ally" Challenged

There is no doubt that in my family, I am "the fairest one of all."  Little Miss is, of  course, the darkest.  Little Buddy is a soft tan and continues to darken as he grows (as is co mmon with biracial children).  Phil tans easily in the sun and rarely gets a sunburn.  Even Little Man--formerly known as "white boy" in our household until we decided the nickname might give him a complex--gets a little rosy red, then promptly develops a nice protective suntan.  Since I am definitely the most prone to painful sunburn--even having blistering and peeling on occasion--it is no surprise that I rarely forget the sunscreen.  I promptly sunscreen myself and all the kids as soon as we start playing outside.  Thoroughly sun-screening an African American child has caused a few comments among friends, but I always figured it had to be good for Little Miss as well as the other kids.  My pediatrician recommended it, and I figured it never hurts to be safe.  After all, I've already got the sunscreen out for myself, so how much harder is it to just do all the kids, too? 

Still, though I am a conscientious sunscreener, I had never actually learned specifics on how the sun can affect people of color.  Therefore, I was really excited to see an interesting article on skin cancer on the front page of CNN.com yesterday.  It's worth a read, especially if you are dark complected or parenting someone who is dark complected.  It turns out dark skin does offer some natural SPF protection.  Very dark skin, like Little Miss', offers as much as SPF 13 sunscreen.  The CDC, however, recommends a minimum of SPF 15 for everyone.  So even Little Miss, who is full African American, needs sunscreen to be fully protected.

The article goes on to say that skin cancer in people of color is not as uncommon as you might think (Did you know Bob Marley died of skin cancer?), and it is much harder to diagnose.  A lot of public awareness has been done to help fair skinned people identify possible melanomas, since those with light pigmentation are 10 times more likely to develop skin cancer.  Unfortunately, this means even a doctor may not be able to identify a possible problem spot on a person of color simply because s/he may never have seen one before.  Since skin cancer is best battled very early on, this presents a danger to people of color. 

Reading about cancer risk is always sobering, but at least it's nice to know I'm doing the right thing and not just being crazy-over-protective.  I have a great sunscreen combo that makes catching and sunscreening the kids super-easy.  I use a rub-on bar of "Coppertone Water Babies" (SPF 30) that is quickly rubbed on everybody's faces and also easy to keep in purse or diaper bag.  I finish off our bodies with "Banana Boat Kids Tear Free Continuous Spray Sunscreen" (SPF 50).  This was a great find...it sprays on like bug spray, with no messy lotion and no rubbing.  It takes no time at all to catch, protect, and release each kid, and the combo is easy to apply on myself, even when I'm wearing my backless swimsuit.

So enjoy the great outdoors and break out the sunscreen!  As my Mom always said whenever we left the house, "Have fun and be safe"!

Transracial Adoption: From Home Depot to CNN

This has not been a great couple of days for this Mommy's self esteem.  First, I was approached twice this weekend by women offering suggestions for Little Miss' hair (hair-raising conversations).  I had been comment-free for almost a year.  True, the first time I was trying something new, and it didn't really look very good, but the second time I thought it looked fine!  Anyway, that's tough, though my loving hubby pointed out that both women went on to ask me questions about our family and adoption, so they may just have been looking for an "in" to get to know the family a little bit (or to be nosey).  Still, I'm considering whether or not it is time to take Little Miss in to get her hair professionally done.  I want to try an experiment anyway.  I have a theory that I'll still get some comments on Little Miss hair even if it is done by a pro, just because we are a conspicuous little family.  I'll let you know how that issue proceeds.

The second hair-raising conversation also involved a little bit of talk about transracial adoption.  The (African American) woman who initiated this conversation (in the Garden Center at Home Depot on Memorial Day--where of course I was completely prepared to discuss the finer points of transracial adoption and had Little Miss' hair done to the nines) was all supportive of our transracial family until she realized that Little Miss was not joining us out of foster care and that we were in fact actively pursuing a second African American adoption even though we had two little guys already.  The conversation remained polite on the surface, but was punctuated by some facial expressions of clear disapproval at times.  I thought it was a little rude. 

Then, I turn to CNN.com this morning and find that the transracial adoption issue has hit the front page.  The article is about DCFS's 1994 decision (the Multi-Ethnic Placement Act) to remove talk of race from the issue of foster care-to-adoption placement in order to encourage the placement of Black children.  It's under discussion because some maintain that White parents are not getting the training that they need to successfully raise a transracial family because race is not given enough consideration.  Also, adoption of Black kids waiting in foster care has not significantly increased, and more Black kids in transracial families experience self esteem problems as compared to same-race families.  I actually prefered the Washington Post version of this story because it made it clear that many of the self-esteem issues are related to skin color, so all children who are very dark (including those adopted internationally from places like Cambodia) can experience a sort of White-envy if they are not encouraged to embrace their own skin color.  This is not a Caucasian vs African-American issue. 

So, what do I think?  Well, first I want to point out that this does not affect my family directly because we are doing infant, agency adoption, not DCFS foster care adoption. My agency already requires transracial adoption training and has ongoing support for transracial adoptive families, and I think that is a good thing.  I think you've got to be willing to put yourself out there and talk to people about the weirdest things at the weirdest times if you are thinking about transracial adoption.  You've also got to be able to handle that stuff without making your kids feel self-consious and inferior.  That's hard.  It deserves at least a warning, if not actual training.  So, it should be part of the discussion.  At the same time, if we are going to say that Black kids are only going to be ok with Black parents, then we are not allowing this country to move forward.  We are forcing it to be a Caucasian vs African-American issue.

Opening of Adoption Records?

CNN.com had an article today on adoption records legislation that, as an adoptive parent, I found very interesting.  In summary, a major adoption institute has urged that all states make adoption records open to adult adoptees.  This would mean they would be able to access their original birth certificates and would learn their birthmothers' names.  To me, this is a no-brainer of a positive step.  Any articles or books I have read that were anti-adoption almost always focus on the isolation of adoptees from any access to their biological information, and on birthparents feelings of guilt because they feel have no idea if their children turned out ok.  It would really only affect adoptions from before the 1980s, as most adoptions now a-days (like Little Miss') are at least partially open.  Little Miss' official records in Illinois are sealed, but because we are open I have copies of all of the documents anyway.

So I was surprised to learn in this article that both the ACLU and some Right-to-Life organizations are protesting this one.  Both have concerns about birthmoms who wish to remain anonymous.  It's not that I don't sympathize, but in my opinion this reaction represents an out-dated view of birthmoms as people who would rather just move on and forget about the baby.  This is an adoption myth, one that many in the adoption community are working hard to counter.  Birthmoms love, care for, and think about the children they placed for adoption.  The Right-to-Life groups fear that birthmoms who desire anonymity may be more likely to choose abortion because records would be open to adult adoptees.  I am actively pro-life and I would be very careful urging any legislation that might increase abortions, however, data in the eight states that currently have open records does not indicate a decrease in adoptions or an increase in abortions.

In my opinion, based only on my expertise as an adoptive mom and not on any heavy-duty research, open records would only help the increase of adoptions and decrease of abortions.  Adoption has sort of an old-fashioned secretive aura around it, at least for people who have not gone through it.  In addition to "sealed records," there are still ideas about "giving up" babies and parents on "lists" waiting for a new baby.  Let's get adoption out there in the open and talk about it in positive language.  Many women and girls now choose to parent rather than abort (good for them!), and while they face many struggles as single parents (the hardest job in the world), they do not generally face a social stigma.  Women who place for adoption, on the other hand, do not have their decision validated in the same way.  In reality, placing for adoption is the bravest and most selfless decision a woman in a crisis pregnancy can make, and we should celebrate that, not hide it away as something shameful.

So that's my two cents on the adoption news of the day.  What do you think?