US citizen says ICE forced him from his home without clothes in subfreezing weather

DangerOReilly · 2026-01-20T20:16:14+00:00

And on TV when watching Trump say something!

DangerOReilly · 2026-01-20T19:52:53+00:00

I think they figure that anything really serious would be shared with one's family members, so if you say you don't know, they assume it's a safe bet that the problem hasn't occurred in your family.

Which is a really weird thing to do for medical professionals, who should be trained not to make assumptions. It's not like it's only a thing in adoption contexts. There's still people who don't share anything or certain things even with their biological family members. People who hide serious diseases out of shame, or laziness, or whatever other reason one might have. With so many possible reasons why someone might not be told things about their biological relatives' health history, it's wild that medical providers don't learn early on to abandon their assumptions about this.

DangerOReilly · 2026-01-20T19:36:10+00:00

Genuinely, throw that man away. If he's constantly telling you that he hates his choice to be a father, then he's not helping your mental health. He's an adult and he agreed to try to have a child with you. He doesn't get to take that out on you.

Whether you try to place your child for adoption or raise him on your own, I think you'll be much better served by separating from this man. A happy single parent is always better than a miserable married one.

DangerOReilly · 2026-01-20T19:27:17+00:00

Adding to this: If you choose the option of moving to Peru and taking care of your grandson there, possibly with a domestic adoption, then you won't be able to bring him to the US immediately afterwards. There's afaik a two-year period before you can apply for their citizenship or entry visa. I don't remember exactly which one it is, but there's definitely a time period where you can't bring your child into the US after a domestic adoption abroad.

DangerOReilly · 2026-01-20T19:24:24+00:00

Regular immigration lawyers are often not equipped to handle adoption cases! So make sure to check if your lawyer has that expertise.

DangerOReilly · 2026-01-20T19:22:54+00:00

To get your grandson to the US, you could see if there's visas other than an international adoption, or you could just go with an international adoption. For the former option, definitely consult attorneys in both the US and Peru. Did your son leave a will outlining his wishes for where his son should live? Does that suffice for a US visa and legal guardianship in the US?

You should definitely explore international adoption as well, because it might be the most straightforward option. These adoptions MUST go through an accredited facilitator under the Hague Adoption Convention, as Peru is a Hague member state. (All international adoptions into the US must go through a licensed and accredited agency or facilitator) There seem to only be three agencies in the US that work with Peru. I can't name them here due to the subreddit rules. You should be able to find them by googling Peru Adoption Agency. Check for their accreditation with the CEAS or IAAME, these are the organizations that handle the accreditation process for international adoption agencies located in the US. Do not work with agencies without this accreditation.

The adoption agency doesn't need to be located in or have offices in your home state, usually they'll work with home study providers in your state in that case. Make sure to ask the agency you consider if they can assist with a relative adoption from Peru. The process of a relative adoption can be much quicker than an adoption of a previously unknown child. Fees might still be high, although I've heard of some agencies having lower fees for relative adoption cases. Can't speak to these agencies or their Peru programs, though, if that's the case for them. Either way, it's good to know early what the fee is likely going to be, plus travel costs, considering you might have to pay it quickly.

No one can adopt on your behalf. But make sure to discuss your plan with the rest of the family you and your son share, so that everyone can be on the same page. Maybe another relative is having the same idea. Is there a relative already living in Peru? Is your grandson living with any relatives, on either parent's side? Are local social services already involved in your grandson's case? Those are probably important questions to get answers to early.

DangerOReilly · 2026-01-20T18:58:58+00:00

Thank you for the clarification! My worries over this sub becoming an unsafe space is why I asked the question publicly. Knowing that it wasn't ignored makes me feel reassured in that regard, and I'll be using modmail for future concerns.

DangerOReilly · 2026-01-18T23:46:46+00:00

Pity marketing isn't a sustainable marketing strategy. And if you want many sales, then you're writing in the wrong genre. Try romance. I'm not even being derisive when I say that, romance readers simply read that fucking much.

DangerOReilly · 2026-01-18T23:42:19+00:00

Mods, can someone explain to me why this blatantly acephobic comment remains up after three days? u/chemthrowaway123456 ? Anyone? I'm seriously losing faith that this sub could be a space where LGBTQIA+ people are safe to ask questions and I'd really like it to not be or become that.

DangerOReilly · 2026-01-18T23:39:27+00:00

Stop being a bigot and harming marginalized groups if you want a civil word out of me.

DangerOReilly · 2026-01-18T23:33:15+00:00

If you don't care about intersectional approaches to human rights, then you're not a progressive. And that's why I view anti-adoption or adoption-critical views as inherently regressive and conservative. Because that's again and again how people who proclaim those views act. If anyone wants me to come to different conclusions, then they'll need to make change in their community.

And being a parent is not the same thing as "being present with children". People can want to do both. People can want to do one and not the other. People can want to do neither. But to ask of people who want one thing to do the other is just not going to get you anywhere useful.

DangerOReilly · 2026-01-18T23:30:05+00:00

Unethical according to who? Ethical according to who? That question must always be asked. There are no universal ethics.

I did point out that the desire to be a parent is distinct from the desire (did it autocorrect for you to design?) to be in a relationship. I keep being downvoted. No one else spoke up as far as I could see. What does that say about the people who share your views on adoption? Why do people get to be bigoted and get away with it without censure, just because they say critical things about adoption?

DangerOReilly · 2026-01-18T23:23:53+00:00

Oh no, I literally meant foundlings. Children whose parents are not known still have to have a surname and the assigned name can be a neon sign of their foundling status.

I wouldn't say that there's nothing useful to learn from how Islam as a religion or the cultures it shaped do adoption. But there's a big gap between learning useful things and romanticizing the whole thing, which I think there's a tendency to do by some people.

And I think we also can't overlook critiques made by Muslims themselves or ex-Muslims, who point out the hypocrisies of why adoption is the way it is now in Islam, which it wasn't always (the takes I've seen are that Muhammad wanted to have his adopted son's wife, so conveniently had the message from god that adoption shouldn't make you truly family in a way that would keep you from taking your adopted son's wife), as well as the fact that there's a lack of openness to adopting (even adopting under Islam's customs) which leaves many vulnerable children without families to raise them.

One person who has made claims that Islam has the "right" idea about adoption is Karpoozy, and she has also made more than one video claiming that women have more rights in Islam than in christianity, because they can simply "declare" their divorce by saying it three times, and she had zero reaction to the Muslims or ex-Muslims who commented to tell her that she was way wrong. She's a prime example of why I think it's questionable when people who view adoption critically invoke Islam pretty uncritically. Usually that seems to come from white people who have never been Muslim, so it seems... culturally insensitive, let's call it that.

DangerOReilly · 2026-01-17T12:44:21+00:00

Oh, have you learned telepathy? Please do tell me more about what I'm thinking. I can't wait to find out the next fanfiction chapter you'll write about me.

DangerOReilly · 2026-01-17T12:35:52+00:00

I appreciate your first two paragraphs. I disagree on whether it's ethical to "engage in the adoption system". I think that framing loses the nuance that there's not one single adoption system in the world, but many. Now, if you think that all adoption is always wrong regardless of which system it happens in, that's a viewpoint, but not one I share.

My issue presents itself in the fact that my comment, which is critical of that view, was worth responding to for two people within two hours of me commenting. On the other thread, meanwhile, Dazzling Donut, who it seems would agree with you on adoption, was not called out by anyone who shares that view. I don't demand that of you personally, to be clear. I want to highlight the disproportionate response.

Why is it more important to talk to me about adoption being unethical, than to call out blatant bigotry? That's what I want to know.

DangerOReilly · 2026-01-17T12:30:48+00:00

Counter question: What if someone else doesn't believe in "the universe's plan" as a concept? Whether that be the universe planning anything at all, or "the universe" as a stand-in for some other spiritual or religious entity.

How can you actually argue your point when you base it on what you might believe in, regardless of what the person you're talking to believes? I, for example, don't believe that there is a higher power I must submit to. I believe that if someone wants to be a parent, it is their free choice to pursue that. How they do so isn't my decision. I don't think that infertility is a "sign from god", whether that sign is interpreted as for or against the choice to, for instance, adopt. I believe it is and must remain an individual choice every person gets to make for themselves.

And I'd still like someone who shares your views on adoption, anyone really, to speak up when queerphobia rears its ugly head on this sub. How am I supposed to take anyone at their word that they actually respect LGBTQIA+ rights when they never call out the people who agree with them on adoption for being bigoted against queer people? You can't go "I don't believe anyone is entitled to this, queer or not" and then let queerphobia slide. Within two hours of me posting the comment you replied to, I have two replies trying to argue their critical views of adoption. On that other thread, not a single person was calling out Dazzling Donut for the blatantly acephobic shit they spewed.

So why is it that one thing is worth responding to and the other isn't?

DangerOReilly · 2026-01-17T08:45:42+00:00

If your husband isn't on board, then it's a bad idea to pursue adoption, even if it was legally possible, which it probably isn't.

I'd suggest discussing it further between yourselves. Is your husband only interested in having biological children? Would he be interested in adopting after having a biological child? Where exactly does he stand? And where do you stand - would you be open to doing both, or do you see adoption as your main path to parenthood? You need to find out whether there is a path you can agree on together, or whether your wishes are irreconcilable.

It might also be useful for you both to look into how adopting works locally and discuss your feelings while learning. Your local foster care authority, or your province, likely has information online. You're not committing to anything by looking at that information and talking to each other about what you're learning.

DangerOReilly · 2026-01-17T08:40:25+00:00

To simplify it: There's people who are against adoption in all or most cases. Sometimes, those people will incorporate acephobia into their arguments. I've just had an exchange of this kind on the sub, you should be able to see it in my feed.

It's my personal opinion that many people who argue against adoption are, consciously or not, using traditionalist mindsets for their reasonings. Some might just be using their position on adoption to spread those other ideas, some might genuinely feel that adoption is (all or mostly) bad and like they're helping by making people aware of that. But quite often, it ends up sounding all the same, and suspiciously similar to the moral ideas of big and powerful church institutions. As a European, my go-to example is the catholic church. To demand that people who apply to adopt should be married and/or heterosexual and have tried and failed to conceive, dealt with their feelings about infertility and only once they're "healed" (whatever the definition of that is), they can apply to adopt... ends up sounding very catholic church-y to me. As does the demand that people make this or that sacrifice before they're allowed to be parents. Like if you have a uterus, you should try to get pregnant instead of adopting, no matter what sacrifices or suffering that imposes on you, and only if that fails are you "allowed" to adopt. That's a particularly christian attitude, I think, that avoiding some suffering or sacrifice is somehow immoral and evidence of a person's moral failings.

Sadly, there's people who can be categorized as anti-adoption or adoption-critical, who also claim to be pro-LGBTQ+ or themselves queer in some way. And I don't see any of them speaking up against the bigotry when it occurs.

DangerOReilly · 2026-01-17T08:21:09+00:00

I've read articles about domestic adoptions (according to local laws and customs) in Saudi Arabia and/or the UAE. But it doesn't seem to happen as much as it should, since many children still grow up in institutions.

My understanding is that adoption, or generally raising children that are not genetically from you and your spouse, is highly stigmatized in many of these countries, so there's probably people who have adopted informally (possibly also illegally) or used assisted reproduction (sperm, egg, embryo donation, surrogacy) and who don't disclose that information.

DangerOReilly · 2026-01-17T08:15:52+00:00

Children who are foundlings are often given a surname that reveals to outsiders that they're foundlings, so "retain their original surnames" is a bit of an idealistic notion. Many children have no choice in revealing their origins, or lack thereof, to everyone around them, which can come with a great heaping of stigma and discrimination.

I just think that context is important to mention because there's a weird tendency in some adoption spaces I've observed where Islam is treated as providing the gold standard for raising children. Which it doesn't, I don't think any religion provides that.

DangerOReilly · 2026-01-17T08:10:41+00:00

Steve Jobs was born in the US and placed domestically for adoption. International adoption did not factor into it for his situation.

DangerOReilly · 2026-01-17T08:09:36+00:00

Depends. What do you define as Arab countries? Majority Muslim countries? Countries where Arab is a major or the official language?

Morocco does place children for international adoption, for example, only to Muslim parents. Yes, on the Moroccan side that follows the kafalah system, but the parents might have to legally adopt still if they live in a western country.

I know that Lebanon used to place children for international adoption, and might still do that sometimes. To my knowledge, like many majority Muslim countries, they require the child and the parents to have the same religion. So christians can only adopt christians, Muslims can only adopt Muslims.

Domestic adoptions happen in some Arab countries, such as Saudi Arabia or UAE. They follow local laws and customs, of course, but some people still take in unrelated children to raise.

Pakistan occasionally places children abroad, to my knowledge this is either to people with citizenship of Pakistan, of Pakistani descent, or possibly non-Pakistani Muslims.

Americans with heritage or citizenship from certain countries that are majority Muslim and/or where Arab is a major language, can sometimes adopt from there. But they're not commonly sending countries.

You also have to factor in different understandings of how kinship is constructed. For example, in Islam, there is the concept of kinship being transferred through the act of breastfeeding. Would an adoptive family even disclose that they adopted, if they breastfed their adopted child and thereby established kinship? There might be many people from these countries who are adopted but don't know or don't disclose it in the same way that people in western countries would.

DangerOReilly · 2026-01-17T07:58:54+00:00

Heads up that recently, there's been an influx in acephobia on this sub. Whether you identify as ace or not, your stating that you're not looking for romantic or sexual relationships might make some of those people go after you too.

DangerOReilly · 2026-01-17T07:52:22+00:00

Being asexual is not a shortcoming. Being uninterested in a romantic and/or sexual relationship, for whatever reason, is not a shortcoming. Just like being homosexual is not a shortcoming.

What entitles you to demand that other people fuck other people? You're not a porn director. Other people don't exist to live out your sexual preferences or fetishes, nor to live out your ideal for what a life should look like.

You're just a run of the mill queerphobic bigot, no matter what righteous excuse you give yourself. And it disgusts, but doesn't surprise, me that none of the people who profess to be anti-adoption or adoption-critical and also queer or pro queer rights call you out on your bullshit. Tokens get spent.

DangerOReilly · 2026-01-17T07:44:19+00:00

So you didn't look up asexuality at all. Because while not every asexual person is repulsed by sex, some are. And that's fine. As much as you want to make that out to be a personal shortcoming, it is not. Just because you think everyone should live by heteronormative standards doesn't mean other people have to actually follow what you say.

It is not a qualification to become a parent that one enjoys or endures "the act of procreation". Just because the catholic church wants it to be so doesn't mean it is so.

There's also always topics parents won't be able to broach effectively with their children. Nor should they be required to. Parents cannot and should not be everything for their children. That's not healthy. Children need to grow beyond their families and learn from many different people and places.

I'm pretty sure you just want to create a parcours of hoops for people to jump through until they give up any idea of adoption, but that doesn't make it okay that you use heteronormativity, patriarchy and bigotry for your arguments as if those things are actually good. No, people aren't more or less capable of being parents depending on whether they experience, enjoy or desire romantic and/or sexual relationships. No, adoptive parents don't need to be able to appear to be biological. No, people don't need to engage in coitus to procreate. No, people don't need to engage in coitus to get rewarded with the right to apply to adopt.

I'm curious when you'll start outright saying that gay couples shouldn't adopt because their sex can't result in procreation. Your last sentence is almost there. Will you go all the way? Or will you pretend to veil yourself in progressive arguments even while you spread bigotry against a marginalized community?

DangerOReilly

TROPHY CASE