Would you call her a mother?

She must have wanted children. Or at least she wanted the income for them, she adopted 7 children, for which she recieved $500 per child in adoption subsidies per month.

But that may not have been enough for her. Mercury Liggins, 49, took a job in Iraq, working for a Haliburton subsidiary called KBR. Allegedly, she left the children in her brother’s care in Nigeria while she did so.

So, she was working, she put the children in her brother’s care and all is well with the world, right? Except, in 2004 American missionaries found the children in a Nigerian orphanage, some were ill and malnourished. They spoke to the missionaries and said they wanted to come home. They are now back in the US in foster care.

Mercury Liggins has been charged with felony theft for pocketing the money she was recieving for the children’s care while she was in Iraq and the children were in the Nigerian orphanage.

Now when you look at her reasoning, it doesn’t hold up. Sometimes mother’s will be separated from their children, due to circumstances. But most “mother’s” I know will do their best to maintain some contact with the children. Letters, phone calls, making sure they have all that they need for their care. And certainly, if she left the kids with her brother, you would think she would turn the adoption subsidies over to him, in order to provide for them. Evidently that didn’t happen here.

Can you imagine the American children, in a land far from their home, where even the language as well as the culture and cuisine would be so different? And then when you think of them being abandoned in an orphanage, to me that is just mind boggling. Thank goodness for those missionaries, who stepped in when the “mother” failed.

There is something else that needs to be looked at here. Adoption subsidies. First of all, I am not against adoption subsidies. Certainly there are times when an adoptive family should recieve a subsidy. Some children are handicapped, and in need of ongoing care. Some children were abused severely enough that they require ongoing medical/psychological care. So yes, I can see the need for adoption subsidies. But, if a family is in need of such a subsidy, wouldn’t you think the state would be required to monitor? To make sure the monies are being used to care for the children. To check to see if there are any ongoing problems for which the families might need some assistance. And in the case where a family has adopted multiple children, requiring a subsidy, to make sure the family is adopting in the best interest of the child?



%d bloggers like this: