|
Keynote Address |
||||
|
The 1998 National
Adoption Conference of New Zealand "The Case Against International Adoption" ** Peter F. Dodds Christchurch, New Zealand I was born on German soil, to a German mother and father, one of thousands of German children adopted by United States citizens in the 1950s-70s. When I was one, my birth mother relinquished me to an orphanage where I lived for 17 months prior to my adoption by foreign (United States) parents. I have recounted my story of international adoption in the book Outer Search\Inner Journey: An Orphan and Adoptee's Quest, the first book written on the subject by a foreign born adoptee. By raising concerns about international adoption, I realize I am going against current public sentiment. Some may find the subject uncomfortable but it is our ethical obligation to educate all those involved about the cultural, ethical, societal and psychological issues inherent in international adoption. Only when all the parties involved have information, both pro and con, are they better able to make a more informed decision. One of the purposes I had in writing Outer Search\Inner Journey was to provide insight to all participating in the international adoption process--policy makers, social workers, mental health professionals, parents, and lawyers--by shedding light on the harm caused by uprooting children from their native cultures and heritages. As I meet with parents who are considering international adoption, I am struck by their sincere desire to raise a child, provide a good home and willingness to endure the struggles known by all parents who rear children. I applaud their intentions. But what they don't know can hurt them, and can hurt the child who they might adopt from abroad. The best of intentions can have unintended and tragic results. Please consider the following: (click on one to go there) 1. History of Intercountry adoption as practiced in the United States 2. Concerns of countries that allow foreigners to adopt their children 3. The research 4. The impact of international adoption on the adoptee 5. International adoption agencies 6. International policies in effect regarding international adoption 7. Alternatives to international adoption 8. Suggestions to improve international adoption practice in the United States 9. Conclusion 1. History of Intercountry Adoption Those in the industrialized nations of the West are increasingly using international adoption as a method of building a family. International adoptions became prevalent after World War II, when orphaned and abandoned children were sent from one European country to another and to the United States. Between 1947 and 1957, fewer than 1,000 Intercountry adoptees entered the United States; of these approximately 70 percent were of European origin. During Wars in Korea and Vietnam, many orphans and children fathered by Americans in those countries were adopted by families in the United States. In the ten years following the Korean War, 60 percent of adoptees who immigrated to the United States were Asian. Since the mid 1950s, more than 130,000 foreign born children have been adopted by American families--44,000 in the last five years. In 1996, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service reported nearly 14,000 foreign children were adopted accounting for about one-sixth of all non-relative adoptions in the United States. This trend is expected to increase. The most publicized reason that United States citizens adopt children from foreign nations is a humanitarian one--the adopting parents will provide a better life for the foreign child than she or he would know in their native land. That is the argument that sells in the press. It is an idea bolstering the myth that Americans must save the world, this time riding to the rescue and saving foreign children. But in scenes of the cavalry rescuing the pioneers, the plight of the Indians is overlooked, and what is over looked in international adoption is the plight of the foreign child who suffers lost identity through the severing of ties to its culture, heritage, history and language. Supporters of international adoption are quiet about the children who are left behind and the hundreds of thousands of American children in need of families. International adoption isn't the answer to improving the overall plight of children in economically depressed or war-torn countries. Even the strongest supporters admit the movement of adoptees across international borders represents only a tiny fraction of the neglected, abused and abandoned children in these countries. It is like placing a band-aid on a severed artery. And what happens to the children who are not adopted and left behind? If parents choosing foreign adoption have as their primary motive a desire to save children, they need not look abroad. A concern associated with the delivery of domestic child welfare services is that 'special needs' children available for adoption in the United States are being bypassed in favor of foreign children. Intercountry adoption actually increases the pool of domestic 'special needs' children. Hundreds of thousands of American children grow up without a permanent home in the foster care system, live in homes below the poverty line or live on the streets. Why aren't Americans adopting their own neglected and destitute children, children whose lives mirror those of their foreign counterpart living in orphanages or on the streets? One of the reasons is that today international adoptions are seen by most Americans as a solution for families needing children rather than children needing families. By the 1970s, the purpose of international adoptions was shifting from the humanitarian one of providing families for abandoned children, and increasingly becoming a way for the childless to satisfy their desire to have children. This shift is important because it signals that the well-being of children has taken second place to the desires of those seeking to adopt. When talking to parents who have, or are considering international adoption, an entirely different set of reasons surface other than rescuing children. What are the more common reasons parents adopt from overseas? ● The policy of legal abortion and the acceptance of single parenthood have diminished the supply of available infants and children available for adoption in the United States. The National Council for Adoption estimates that approximately two million couples wait to adopt a child from an annual pool of some 25,000 healthy, predominantly white children. Competition is fierce and parents unable to adopt domestically may choose the international route. ● A second reason is the domestic adoption process is lengthy and prospective parents may be unwilling to endure the long wait. ● Some choose international adoption because there is a sense of greater security in the permanency of raising a foreign child as compared to one adopted domestically. Geographic distance and the protection of the United States government provide safety from possible unwanted intrusions and the specter of the birth mother one-day appearing on the doorstep is diminished. ● Not all parents are comfortable with the growing policy of "open adoption." At this time most international adoptions are not "open adoptions." ● International adoption is also a viable alternative for people who do not meet the prerequisites for domestic adoptions. For example, couples exceeding age guidelines, single parents or gay couples can find children to adopt in certain countries. ● And last, international adoption allows greater choice for the adopting parents. For example, adopting parents can often choose their child's sex and age. Historically, in the United States, the trend was to match children ethnically, racially, culturally and whenever possible by religious affiliation. Thus, the origination of Catholic and Jewish adoption agencies. In like manner, other adoption agencies geared to particular groups sprouted such as agencies focused on matching Black children with Black families, Asian children with Asian families, Hispanic children with Hispanic families, etc. With the social/political changes that have occurred within the United States in the last 20 years, matching children with families has become difficult. With the availability of a greater pool of prospective parents and a diminished supply of white children for adoption, trans-racial adoption has become more popular. However, this trend has spurred debate. A significant number of Black social workers bitterly oppose the adoption of Black children to non-Black families arguing it would deprive Black children of their cultural heritage, while at the same time preventing them from developing coping mechanisms to deal with societal racism. In 1972, the National Association of Black Social Workers issued a position statement to this effect and reiterated it in 1986 saying Black children who grow up in ethnically different families suffer serious identity conflicts and barriers to socialization. The NABSW's view on trans-racial adoption has been supported by American Indian groups and also the researcher Kim, who raised similar concerns about identity formation in Korean Intercountry adoptees. Top of Page - Topics 2. Concerns of countries that allow foreigners to adopt their children Damien Ngabonziza, Programmes Officer at the International Social Services located in Geneva, Switzerland summarizes the major concerns: ● African countries generally view Intercountry adoption as a form of neocolonialism and do not, for the most part, sanction the adoption overseas of native children. ● Sending countries without strong child protection laws and welfare policies are among the most vulnerable to the black market sales and trafficking of children. There is a widespread view in Latin America, for example, that international adoption takes the most desirable adoptees in terms of age, health and racial heritage, and leaves hard to place children in their countries of origin. ● The adoption of a comparatively small number of children in a large population of desperately needy youngsters is too often seen as a panacea, and it ignores the wellbeing of the majority. ● Intercountry adoption does nothing to solve the problem of high birth rates nor poverty, two of the root causes of international adoption. There is little evidence that intercountry adoption significantly enhances development of child welfare services in economically under developed and war torn nations. ● Intercountry adoption is fraught with difficulties arising from differing cultural values and relationships regarding access to one's roots, contacts with birth families and ties to the country of origin. In 1999, Russian lawmakers unanimously approved a bill that would tighten control over foreigners adopting their children. The bill's initiator, Alevtina Aparian, said the restrictions are needed to better protect Russian children in the aftermath of the Polreis and Thorne cases. One year later, the President of South Korea, Kim Dae Jung, tearfully apologized to the hundreds-of-thousands of Korean children divested of their identities and exported around the world in order to spare their communities the shame of their existence. In 2002, Rumania stopped all foreigners from adopting their children due to abuses of the process. Top of Page - Topics 3. The research An article published in Child Welfare September-October 1995, reports, "The findings from the few available outcomes studies of Intercountry adoptees are at times conflicting. There is some evidence indicating that transient emotional and behavioral difficulties occur in some Intercountry adoptees." The current state of research based on follow-up studies is fragmented. The studies have been criticized for: the short time frame they encompass; the Eurocentric constructs employed; inadequate sampling methods; questionably low response rates; unwarranted extrapolation from one situation to another; substantial disagreement on the criteriological problem of whether a qualified "success" is actually a success? Top of Page - Topics 4. The impact of international adoption on the adoptee As I read through international adoption literature in the United States, what strikes me most is that the voice of the foreign born adoptee has yet to be heard. Literature describes "how to adopt" a foreign child and actions that adopting parents can take to bridge barriers separating them from their child. The word "bridge" indicates there is a chasm. What is this chasm? For internationally adopted children, the chasm represents lost language, heritage, culture, history and country. What is written about international adoption comes from the perspective of adults, American adults, so it is difficult to piece together a picture of consequences international adoption has on the foreign born adoptee. But there are pieces, and when put together a disturbing picture begins to emerge: ● ABC PRIME TIME LIVE reported in April 1998 an adoption agency in Baton Rouge, Louisiana brings young, poor pregnant Russian women to the United States on bogus visas. The women stay long enough to have their babies and then return to Russia with $1,000. Adoptive families in America pay around $40,000 for an adopted bay through this method. ● On September 23, 1997, Renee Polreis a mother convicted of beating her adopted Russian son to death with wooden spoons and a rubber spatula, was sentenced to 22 years in prison by a Greeley, Colorado judge. Renee Polreis said she feared for her life and called her son a "demon." He was two-years old. ● An A.P. article dated August 1, 1997 discussed the plight of thousands of children from British orphanages sent to live in Canada, Australia and New Zealand during WW II and decades afterward. "They (British Government) should just admit they were wrong, that it is not right to remove us from our homes and heritage," said Shiela Pearce a spokeswoman for adult British orphans shipped to Australia. ● In June, 1997, Richard and Karen Thorne of Phoenix, Arizona, were arrested at New York's Kennedy Airport on arrival from Moscow: Passengers and crew reported seeing the Thorne's abuse the two 4-year-old Russian girls they had just adopted, striking them in the chest, face, and head with such force that the girls screamed and cowered throughout the flight. (U.S. News & World Report; July 14, 1997). The girls lived in five different foster homes before being released to the custody of the Thornes. ● For some decades children from several non-European countries have been adopted in the Netherlands. Over 20,000 foreign children from about 70 countries live in that country. In the beginning intercountry adoption was viewed enthusiastically in the Netherlands and seen as a positive experience for adoptive families. In the course of the eighties an increasing number of people began pointing out the risks that might be involved in the adoption of foreign children. The numbers of international adoptions are now declining in that country. ● Mi Ok Song, adopted in 1966 out of a Korean orphanage by American parents writes, "My opinion is considered controversial because I believe that international adoption is a covert but cruel act of child abuse when the adopted child who becomes an adult is legally, politically and socially prevented from searching for her\his own birth mother or family--when records are sealed, changed or destroyed, thus denying the birth right to know who and where she\he came from. This is a violation of basic human rights." ● One can look closer to home for signs trouble waits for children who are adopted into a different culture. Read what the National Association of Black Social Workers has to say when opposing the adoption of Black children to non-Black families. And North American Indians have formed organizations to repatriate their children who have been severed from tribes through adoption. ● A June 23, 1996 front page article of the New York Times titled, "When Children Adopted Abroad Come With Too Many Troubles," highlighted problems American parents are experiencing with children they've adopted from eastern Europe and Russia; children unable to adjust emotionally or socially to their new homes. All children adopted internationally face physical and emotional upheaval. First there is the trauma of departure accompanied by separation and loss. Mr. Sook Wilkerson reports the process in an article appearing in the Summer, 1995 edition of The American Journal of Family Therapy. He writes, "In the 1980s, I escorted infants and older children from South Korea to the United States. The children, dressed in their best outfits, were brought to their sponsoring adoption agency by their foster parents or orphanage personnel, who were eager to give the children one last dose of affection and advice. The older children were often told by their caregivers to be good, not to make problems, to be cooperative with their adoptive parents, to study hard and to return to Korea as successful adults. The children were expected to take in these words of wisdom while fighting back tears." Mr. Wilkerson goes on to describe the process. "All the children knew was that they had to say good-bye to everything familiar: their friends, the place they called home, the people who took care of them. They were asked to believe that it was for their own good to leave home and go live with "new" parents. Once in a while, a birth relative showed up at the airport. This created a heart-rending situation for both the child and the relative. After official transfer to the escorts, the children entered the plane. Some babies were asleep, and most other children felt excitement, confusion and fear. As soon as the plane took off, the environment became completely unfamiliar. Such changes were to continue to baffle them in their period of adjustment and later on as well. The changes included differences in language, type of food, and sleeping arrangements. As is true of most physical changes, they are accompanied by emotional and psychological change as well." In the Netherlands seventy to eighty percent of the international adoptive placements run smoothly. For the remaining 25 percent of placements, professional help, for a longer or shorter period of time, has proven to be necessary. That's one out of four parents who lack the skills and resources to adequately raise foreign children. What about the change of language faced by the international adoptee. Language plays a critical role in the beginning period of adjustment. Initially, most children have little proficiency in English and the majority of the adoptive parents do not have language capabilities to converse with their children. Communication becomes very challenging to say the least. It also happens during one of the most intense periods of grief reaction on the part of some children. They have left behind everything familiar, and encounter everything new and different but their expression of grief is not understood by anyone! It is only natural for them to resort to physical expression of their grief and anger--like self-hurting behaviors, aggressive and hostile behaviors, and crying. Most children learn English fast enough to facilitate communication. However, the more proficient in English the child becomes, the more they lose their native language. This loss is significant since language is a crucial part of culture. As these children lose their attachment to their culture of origin, it may disturb their identity formation. The issue of the loss of language or culture may have a long-lasting impact and may affect them again at a point when they are ready to solidify their identity. The people in the new country will probably look different. Smells and food will also be different as can the sleeping arrangements. Most international adoptees had previously shared sleeping quarters, sometimes because of lack of space and sometimes because of cultural mores. In Korea, for example, children normally sleep in the same room as their parents until school age. Even if space is not a problem, Korean parents would not think of letting their young child sleep alone. In orphanages, children share their bedroom with many others. To some children, Western beds are unfamiliar as they formally slept on the floor. A newly adopted child may be picked up from the airport, then placed in a room alone and expected to go to sleep. It is no wonder that some adoptees experience sleep or night terrors. Later in life, the greatest obstacle for transition to emotional well being for the international adoptee will be the process of identity formation. International adoptees report a heightened interest in their native culture during adolescence as they struggle with the most important development task at that age--identity. For me, the question of am I German or American haunted me into adulthood. Identity formation is a task of adolescence in which youths strive to define who and what they are in relation to career, life goals, friendship patterns, sexual orientation, religion, moral value systems and group loyalties. For internationally adopted children, this task of forming, clarifying, and reclarifying their identity is an ongoing process that must include all the of the previously mentioned issues, plus ethnicity. These cross-racially, cross-culturally adopted children become aware at very early ages that they are different from their adoptive parents. Imagine children who grow up with people who look different. The children come to posses similar values and morals as their adoptive parents. What they believe they are as adolescents may differ from what others believe they are. People in an attempt to understand who the foreign born adoptee is apply stereotyped notions or generalizations about their race or culture of origin. These create an internal conflict and, therefore, an examination of their ethnicity must become a part of successful identity formation. Many adoptees feel awkward and rejected in their interactions with immigrants from their native lands, who are perplexed and disappointed by the thoroughly American behavior of some Intercountry adoptees. You all know about the possibility of an adoptee facing a second rejection when finding her or his birth mother. The foreign adoptee also may encounter a second rejection by their own people. And so it was when I returned to my homeland in my twenties and lived in Germany for three years. The book written by Jerzy Kosinski titled The Painted Bird helps illustrate my experience. In the book, a sadistic peasant captures a wild bird and takes it to his barn. The peasant paints the bird's feathers bright colors, colors different from the bird's natural feathers. After leaving the bird in his barn a few days so that the paint dries, the peasant takes the bird to a field and releases it back to the wild. The bird, with its feathers painted a new color, instinctively flies to rejoin its flock. As the bird draws near to its own kind, the members of the flock scatter not recognizing the bird who appears unlike them because of its painted feathers. When I returned to Germany I wanted to be melted into liquid, poured into a cast iron mold and reshaped into my original German form. While living there as an adult, I drove only German cars, drank only German beer, dated only German women, learned to speak the language nearly fluently, lived in a German apartment, had German friends. I would look at my countrymen and plead, "Can't you see me? Don't you recognize who I am? I am one of you." But the Germans didn't recognize me because international adoption had painted my feathers a different color. I spent three years writing Outer Search\Inner Journey in part to describe the experience of being a foreigner in one's own land. Dr. Juliet Harper is Senior Lecturer on Psychology at Macquarie University in Australia and a Child Psychotherapist. She has done work with adoption disruption, where the adoption is terminated, with families who have adopted internationally. Her work provides insight into the unique problems of Intercountry adoption. She suggests that disruption usually follow a predictable pattern and occur because of one or more of three circumstances: the existence of unidentified factors such as critical information which is not recognized by the family or social worker, the misassement of the capacity or readiness of the family or child to make an adoptive attachment, and the emergence of unpredictable circumstances which preclude the normal progression of the adoption. For children adopted from other countries who have acquired the language and identity of their new families, disruption of their adoption is difficult to conceptualize since this loss is in effect loss of their whole existence. It renders them a stranger in the world in which they find themselves, as well as in the world from which they came. Reasons families have sought Dr. Harper's assistance have ranged from behavioral problems on the part of the international adoptee such as lying, sexual acting out and temper tantrums to developmental delays, difficulties in relating, fears and anxieties, issues of identity and finally disruption. Some families had doubts about their children's stated age, with medical and dental evidence suggesting that some were up to two years older than the age appearing on their adoption documents. Why any adoption disrupts is difficult to determine objectively she states, because of the complexity of the issues involved and the degree of emotion invested in the process. There is tremendous guilt associated with the admission that parents are not coping and the visibility of the Intercountry adoptive family increase the guilt. Furthermore, when the adoption disrupts little support or sympathy may be extended towards the family by the community because having adopted an abandoned child from another culture they in turn abandon it themselves. Dr. Harper found that adoptive parents' gave the following factors as reasons contributing to the disrupted adoption: the child was older than desired, they weren't provided enough information about their child or the information was misleading, negative circumstances on the first encounter, the child's early history created attachment problems, the child did not relate to the parents or did not fit into the family, the child was not the one they had prepared for or the child was angry or oppositional. Dr. Harper also looked at the disruption from the child's point of view. She found it difficult for the children to articulate why they felt things had not worked out and this was only revealed after a period of separation from the adopting parents, and when it was obvious that a return to that family was not possible. Although most children had quickly developed English, their vocabulary was very concrete and problems in comprehension tended to be masked by their apparent verbal fluency. She found the children had been inadequately prepared for adoption, having little idea of what was expected of them, and they were not able to respond adequately to parenting offered by the adoptive mother. Other reasons for the disruption from the children's point of view were that they did not like the family or felt rejected by the family, did not want to come to Australia and always felt different. Child welfare experts from Great Britain, the Netherlands and Australia often refer to the Intercountry adoptee as a special needs child. Although the profile of Intercountry adoptees does not fit Nelson's operational definition of 'special needs' children--that is those with physical, emotional or development handicaps, older children, and sibling groups. However, special problems are associated with foreign children traumatized by war, hunger, extreme poverty and institutionalization. A common developmental handicap affecting older Intercountry adoptees involves learning a new language and culture. Following a study of disrupted placements involving Dutch Intercountry adoptees, Dr. Hoksbergen stressed the relationship between positive developmental outcomes and long-term, specialized medical and educational interventions. Thus, from the perspective of developmental issues, the 35 percent of immigrant adoptees over the age of one who enter the United States could be defined more properly as a type of 'special needs' placement. Because of the difficulties inherent with international adoption, the Netherlands, regarded as a country with liberal social policies, in 1988 enacted the Act on Intercountry Adoption in which the legal procedure involved in adopting foreign children was laid down. The purpose of the program is to give prospective parents the necessary knowledge and make them aware of the full scope of adoptive parenthood, so that eventually they can make a well considered choice whether or not to adopt a foreign child. The Act on Intercountry Adoption includes requirements for prospective adopting parents including: ● the parents must be married ● a maximum age limit of 41 years ● the age difference between the prospective parent and the foreign child should not exceed 40 years ● the maximum age limit of a foreign child should not exceed 5 years The Act on Intercountry Adoption also requires applicants to complete an extensive information and preparation program for those who are submitting an application for the first time. From 1990 through 1993, about 40 percent of the couples applying for a foreign child withdrew their application. Top of Page - Topics 5. International adoption agencies Asking international adoption agencies to discuss the pitfalls of adopting children from abroad is like asking the tobacco industry to discuss the damage caused by smoking. International adoption agencies are guilty on at least two levels of corruption: 1) making money through the sale of children and, 2) deceit through omission when failing to accurately describe the problems associated with international adoption. My colleague Mi Ok Song Bruining, adopted from Korea by Caucasian Americans, calls this the "international adoption industry". Mi Ok accurately describes the industry: the children are the product, the birthmothers the manufacturer, the host country provides the warehouse, prospective parents are customers and the agencies are the sales force. Making money through the sale of children: International adoption has become an increasingly competitive and lucrative enterprise, with intermediaries charging between $5,000 to $30,000 and more for their services. It is now a business involving hundreds-of-millions of dollars. Secondary businesses have mushroomed--look at any adoption magazine and you will see advertisements not only for agencies that market children, but also attorneys specializing in international adoption, travel agencies, and vendors selling the latest ethnic books and toys. With technological advances, agencies have descended into a quagmire by posting photos on the Internet of children "available" for adoption. Some agencies offer insurance policies to prospective parents promising to return their money in case the adoption (child) doesn't work out. Organizations and people involved with international adoption have enormous sums at stake. Big money can open the door to selling children. Although it is estimated that 75 percent of international adoptions are completed in good faith, a major concern is the increasing commercialization and lack of adequate safeguards, resulting in criminal abuses, abduction and sale of children. Because Intercountry adoption delivers much-needed currency to poor nations, it has also been criticized for promoting corruption. Annual yields in 1994 from the adoption business in South Korea was about $15 - $20 million; in Guatemala, some $5 million; and in Honduras, approximately $2 million. The United States can be criticized for its participation in international adoption due to its lack of control over legal and social procedures through which such placements are financed and arranged. Given the preferential demand for healthy infants in the United States adoption market, an important policy issue is the extent to which the practice of international adoption results in pregnancies for profit, coercion of birth parents, and the corruption of child welfare services. Albert S. Wei who was adopted from abroad by Americans writes, "Commercially motivated international adoption as a source of hard currency revenues to the provider nations tend to create entrenched bureaucracies that are supported by such abuses. Thus, it often, I fear, deters true reforms and obstructs the efforts sending nations and, multilateral agencies to promote improvements in social welfare infrastructure in developing countries. Where this happens, many more children will be hurt by the process of adoption than are actually 'saved.' As someone who works at the periphery of third world development issues, I find what I see just as appalling as anyone does. But the sad fact is that the deus ex machina of 'rescue' of individuals is, generally speaking, counter-productive." An examination of Holt International Children's Service's, one of the largest international adoption agencies operating in the United States, helps shed light on the issue of money and international adoption. According to Holt's 1997 Annual Report, that agency had revenue, gains and public support of $14.6 million. Holt facilitated 1,942 permanent adoptions and charged fees totaling a $9.8 million, or 68 percent of their income. Other revenue sources for Holt in 1997 were contributions of $905,084 which were 501(c)(3) tax deductible, transportation fees of $930,500, American tax payer dollars in the form of $407,491 worth of USAID grants, and $1.8 million in net assets released from restrictions. Holt's annual report states the organization's priorities are, "to safeguard every child's best interests." Holt's written priorities are: 1) reunite the child with his birth parents 2) domestic adoption 3) Intercountry adoption However, the Executive Director's message in Holt's 1997 Annual Report seems to conflict with the priorities of the agency he's leading. John L. Williams writes, "I have set a goal for Holt to place at least 5,000 children a year into permanent families by the year 2006." Mr. Williams doesn't mention a word about Holt's number one priority--reuniting children with birth parents--because that's not where the money is. Should Mr. Williams hit his goal of 5,000 adoptions, that translates into $17.7 million in fees. Holt would increase its revenue stream by $7.9 million, while thousands more children lose their homelands, culture, language, history and heritage. Holt's business plan clearly illustrate that the interests of international adoption agencies tower over those of children. Intercountry adoption in Canada seems little better than in the United States. Canadian authorities say babies have been bought, children have been kidnapped and government documents forged. Ontario Social Service Minister Janet Ecker said, "Parents have been asked to pay, in effect, finders fees, outrageous fees in effect to buy a kid. There have been children who have been kidnapped from their birth parents for adoption." Deceit through omission: International adoption agencies fail to provide accurate information on the difficulties associated with adopting children from abroad. Agencies prey on the emotions of prospective parents, many of whom have been through years of unsuccessful fertility treatments. "People like my husband and myself are very vulnerable because we are desperate for a child," said Kathryn Ballou, a university nursing instructor and doctoral student in Kansas City, Missouri who explored adopting a 'foreign child'. "We had gone through infertility." A 1997 story published in Newsday illustrates the problem, "Parents who [have disrupted international adoptions] believe they've been deceived. They thought the children would be all right, but some experts say 15 percent to 20 percent are severely impaired, not only with physical problems but also with autism, mental retardation and serious behavioral disorders. A few have been given up by their American families, who found them too difficult to handle." Ronald Federici, an Alexandria, Virginia, neurophysiologist who specializes in diagnosing and treating post-institutionalized children says, "The agencies are not adequately informing the families of the potential risk factors." At the same time, the international adoption agencies fail to address the rights of the birthparents, reparations to sending nations for taking their children and the rights of the foreign child. Top of Page - Topics 6. International policies in effect regarding international adoption The phenomenon of international adoption has persisted in the United States with little regard to the rights of the foreign-born adoptee. In 1992, with growing concern about international adoptions, a meeting of child welfare experts was held in Manila, Philippines on "Protecting Children's Rights in Inter-country Adoptions and Preventing the Trafficking and Sale of Children." The recommendations of the Manila conference emphasized the need to encourage local alternatives to international adoptions, beginning with social services to help keep families together. Among comprehensive recommendations, the meeting cited the need for: ● economic assistance to parents and families, such as food and clothing, to help keep families intact; ● counseling to help stop abuse and conflicts within families; ● family planning education and services to help prevent unwanted pregnancies; ● support for single parents, and single mothers especially. The Manila conference recommended that if a child cannot be raised by her or his parents, care within the extended family, with support if necessary, should be the next goal. If this is not possible, efforts should be made to secure domestic adoption. Only when all such alternatives have been exhausted should international adoption be considered. The Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly and entered into force on 2 September 1990. It is regarded by most child rights experts as the standard by which adoption procedures should be judged. International concern to safeguard the rights of children offered for international adoption is reflected in renewed efforts to provide suitable alternatives within the child's home country. Article 8 of the Convention ensures the child's right to preserve her or his identity, including nationality, name and family relations. International adoption is to be considered only when all possible means of giving the child suitable care in her or his own social and national setting have been exhausted. Only the United States and Somalia, have yet to sign or ratify the Convention. As a result of events unfolding in Bosnia and Rwanda, the United Nations Children Fund (UNICEF) in 1993 published a comprehensive guide for providing services to children in conflicts. The guide makes a number of recommendations for protecting children: ● every effort needs to be made to maintain family unity and avoid separation of children from their families; ● efforts to reunite families should be made as soon as possible; ● unaccompanied children should receive emergency care and be provided a legal guardian; ● placement decisions for the care of children should assure long-term, nurturing relationships; children should be cared for within their own families, communities and cultures, and their language, culture and ethnic ties preserved. Top of Page - Topics 7. Alternatives to international adoption Those who desire to help children in economically deprived, or war-torn countries, have alternatives to international adoption. I have already discussed the United Nations Children's Fund as an organization that serves to provide resources so that countries can gain the means to care for their own children. Another organization is World Vision, an international partnership of Christians whose mission is to work with the poor and oppressed to promote human transformation. Since its founding in 1950 World Vision has grown to be the largest privately funded Christian relief and development organization in the world, helping children and families in more than 100 countries. World Vision is not an adoption agency and does not facilitate adoptions. It works to help children become productive citizens in their own countries. Child sponsorship promotes positive and lasting change by using sound community development principles with programs in nutrition, education, health care, agriculture, and vocational skills training for children, parents and their communities. Top of Page - Topics 8. Suggestions to Improve International Adoption Practice in the United States 1. The United States should adopt the United Nations' 1986 Declaration of Social and Legal Principals Relating to the Protection and Welfare of Children which urges the establishment of uniform policies, legislation, and supervision for protection of international adoptees. 2. Ratify the 1993 Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption. This would require the establishment of a central authority in the United States to regulate adoption practice, curtail the trafficking and sale of children, and negotiate uniform adoption policies in each of the 50 states. Compliance with the Hague Convention would simplify international adoptions, but significant changes in current implementation procedures would be required by the creation of a central authority. 3. Designate international adoptees as 'special needs' children. With 35 percent of international adoptions in the United States involving children over the age of one year old, coupled in many cases with little information on the child's pre-placement history and probable abuse, neglect and exposure to conditions of extreme poverty, child welfare workers are well-advised to view international adoptees as special needs children. This would signal foreign born adoptees need additional resources to develop in a positive manner. 4. Follow the Netherlands Act on Intercountry Adoption and implement national criteria for prospective adopting parents and mandatory training and education programs. This screening process would weed out parents, such as Renee Polreis and the Thornes, who might unknowingly be unable to successfully parent foreign children and better prepare those who adopt. 5. Revise the domestic welfare system so that bureaucratic hurdles and time delays are reduced in finding permanent homes for American children. 6. From a public policy standpoint, government should create incentives for Americans to adopt American children and at the same time create disincentives for international adoption. For example, amend the Adoption Tax Credit so that it eliminates deductions for international adoption. 7. Education for all parties concerned that international adoption creates upheaval for the foreign born adoptee, adds another layer of loss and is an impediment in the process of identity formation. Top of Page - Topics 9. Conclusion We have seen that international adoption is complex and is filled with inherent problems and difficulties. Domestic child welfare professionals argue that 'special needs' children available for adoption in the United States are being bypassed in favor of foreign children. International adoption does nothing to eliminate problems of poverty and high-birth rates in countries where children are adopted by foreigners. Countries that surrender their children for international adoption have concerns. The research is insufficient and conflicting. For the adoptee, international adoption creates upheaval, adds another layer of loss and is an impediment in the process of identity formation. International adoption agencies are tainted by money and corruption has been associated with international adoption. The United States does not abide by existing international policies regarding international adoption. Suggestions have been offered to improve international adoption in the United States at both the government and child welfare levels. And I have cited two organizations that work to help children and communities in economically deprived, or war-torn countries. ### ** The text of this speech have been updated to reflect current events |
||||
|
Copyright © 2002-2003 Peter F Dodds |
||||