e-mail
As a birth mother particularly interested in ethical issues in adoption, I am still puzzled by many of the stories I read about international adoptions. I am not naive enough to believe that every news article about the corruption, etc. in certain countries is necessarily accurate and impartial.
People have their own agendas, and some journalists figure that sensationalizing the news about international adoptions sells newspapers. For that reason, I do not believe all that I read. However, when I keep hearing similar stories on a consistent basis, I do take note. Here are some of the conclusions that I have reached:
Parents seem to develop a loyalty and interest in a country where they adopted. There is absolutely nothing unusual or abnormal about that. However, when excess corruption or unethical practices are uncovered in a country, it makes sense to me that one might reconsider adopting again from that same country again unless changes occur. Despite country loyalty, why ignore warnings and take the risk of an unethical adoption?
When I read about choosing a country to adopt internationally, ethical practices rarely seems to be the first priority. I suppose that the same is also true in domestic adoptions. However, why are ethics not at the top of everyone’s list? I scan articles about how to choose a country or agency and often see no mention of ethics.
Of course, children in countries with ethical issues being highlighted deserve families as much as any child. However, don’t countries have more incentive to clean up adoption practices if they discover that potential adoptive parents become leery about adopting from their countries when they receive bad press?
Aren’t there plenty of other countries to adopt from that have better reputations for ethical practices? I keep remembering my son telling me about his cousin who adopted a child last year. I mentioned in a previous blog that he told me that it took her longer to adopt because she turned down several placements because “things didn’t seem quite right.”
Do agencies count on adoptive parents being “hooked” and unwilling to turn down a placement once the process is underway? I know that some adoption.com bloggers have turned down placements – I recall that Erin did so. Doesn’t that send a clear message to countries or agencies that refuse to abide by laws in place?
The State Department even mentions problems that exist in certain countries. Do adopting parents routinely pay attention and heed these warnings? International adoptions seem to be an extremely touchy subject, and nearly every time I venture into this arena, tempers flare and some adoptive parents become angry.
Are adoptive parents who adopt internationally criticized so frequently that they are now extremely hyper sensitive? It seems that to question any aspect of international adoptions equates in some minds to suggesting that some countries cease adoptions until their bad practices are resolved. Aren’t their other possible solutions?
At the very least, it seems prudent to pay attention to what the State Department and others in the know say about adopting from certain countries. I would love an explanation as to why anyone feels that it is wise to ignore warnings and advice about the inadvisability of adopting in certain countries.
Further Reading:
State Department Information by State
Books on Adopting Internationally
Photo by Jan Baker 2007
My opinion —
For one, I think it’s hard to talk about international adoption as one topic — even though people do — because it’s such a complex thing with so many different countries, laws, policies, procedures, etc., to took at. So with questions of ethics, it really becomes a matter of looking country-by-county, agency-by-agency, and then case-by-case because they’re all going to be different.
For example, when we started our adoption process, things in Vietnam seemed to be smooth. Our adoption process was not a quick one so by the time we were nearly finished, there actually were questions about how things were going in Vietnam. However, we didn’t change countries. Part of the reason that we didn’t is that I had faith in our agency because of the Vietnam facilitator that they employed at the time. He crossed all his t’s and dotted all his i’s — so even if other agencies may have had questionable referrals or practices, we were extremely comfortable with the ethics of our agency and knew that things were being done above-board. So it’s not just the country that you have to look at, it’s also the agency that people use, the facilitator that they use, and many other factors.
Another thing is that these warnings do change, so you can start out with a country with it being fine and then once you’re in the middle of the process, maybe something comes to the forefront and the warnings are put in place. If a couple already has a referral, they might not want to change to another country. Perhaps they do think that things were done ethically. Or perhaps they haven’t done their homework and they should have. ???
I can’t speak for everyone, of course. However, very respectfully, I do think that, as always, it’s unfair to lump all or even most internationally adoptive parents together. I know when people asked me why we chose Vietnam, I didn’t say, “Ethics!” as one of my reasons, but if there had been huge problems with the country and our agency/facilitator at the time, we would not have gone that route. Very respectfully again, it seems unfair to expect a certain answer out of people — almost like a trick question where if they don’t answer a certain way, there’s something suspect about them. People choose countries for many different reasons, some of them very personal, some of them simply because they felt “drawn to” a country. Sometimes it’s something that’s difficult to put into words. And at other times when we’re asked, the person asking does so in a tone that seems confrontational so it truly becomes a matter of answering in a rote, “this is really none of your business” way.
In conclusion, I’m not sure that this:
“I would love an explanation as to why anyone feels that it is wise to ignore warnings and advice about the inadvisability of adopting in certain countries.”
is really an accurate statement for at least some of us who adopt internationally.
At the very least, it’s a gross misperception that many probably have. But it certainly wasn’t true for me and it’s not true for the many international adoptive parents that I know.
I’m considering Vietnam as well…
There is Guatemala to consider, i was considering them, but their process right now seems very unstable.
But there is such a strong need to adopt from there. I think I will consider them as the second country I adopt from if and only if I have an ethical agency that genuinely cares about the children there and their well being.
But again, their situation is rather dire since there is no central child welfare system.
I actually agree with you – we keep warning people that adoptions in Zambia are extremely unstable at best, immoral and unethical bordering on child trafficking – but interest is soaring because people “hear” they can get young babies. That seems to be why people are going there right now – cheap, quick and very young kids. In spite of all the warnings. (Oh, but we do get told that because we had trouble with unethical people it’s OUR fault . . . )
I don’t think I’d go for cheap quick and young, even though I seem to want a chiild between the ages of 3 months to 9 months, but not if it means dishonesty and immorality.
Those sort of things are risky for international adoption as a whole and eclipse all the good it can do.
Jan: Looks like you got some great answers in some of the above replies. Very thorough. There are a few statements that jumped out at me when I read this article and I thought I’d address those:
“Despite country loyalty, why ignore warnings and take the risk of an unethical adoption?”
I’d adopt again from Guatemala because: a. I have confidence in my agency and AW that they are asking the hard questions and doing the hard work to “ensure” that my adoption is an ethical one….at least in as much as anyone can be sure that an adoption is ethical b. ds, IMO, should be given the opportunity to share his heritage and his pride in being Guatemalan with another family member.
There is a catch 22 to your question, however, Jan. Or maybe it’s just a catch 22 in giving the “correct” answer to this kind of question. The catch is this:
On one hand, if I adopt again from Guatemala, there is the “Why would you adopt from there, with all the warnings?” question. On the other hand, if I either do not adopt again or adopt from a different country, there is the “Why are you not more sensitive to your child’s felings of cultural/national isolation?”. Lucky for us, DH and I will build our family without a whole lot of worry about what others think :0)
“However, don’t countries have more incentive to clean up adoption practices if they discover that potential adoptive parents become leery about adopting from their countries when they receive bad press?”
With all due respect (and with full acknowledgement of the dreadful and unethical situations with CAN occur in many foreign countries) but isn’t this a bit Machiavellian? To boycott adoption from a country is to turn away from the slow, painful and ignominious death that millions of children suffer due to a country’s inability (or unwillingness) to care for it’s desperately poor. It’s easy for us in rich America to advocate for eliminating adoption from overseas countries. It makes us feel good to be upstanding and so ethical. But would we be so sure of ourselves if we looked into the eyes of one starving orphan, one five-year-old street gang member, one desperate mother who believed her child had the chance to escape mind numbing poverty and now has that opportunity taken away? And in the name of “for your own good”. I’ve asked this question before, but here goes again: What happens to the hundreds of thousands of children who could have been adopted from a country but now face starvation, abandonement, gang initiation, rape and worse? Who feeds them? Who educates them so they can have economic advantages? Are these children the “means” that are justified by the “ends”? Is THAT ethical?
“Are adoptive parents who adopt internationally criticized so frequently that they are now extremely hyper sensitive?”
I would say yes, some adoptive parents (myself included) can be hyper-sensitive to criticism. It is similar in intensity and occurence to the hyper-sensitivity seen in some adoptees and birthparents when their positions are criticized.
“I don’t think I’d go for cheap quick and young, even though I seem to want a chiild between the ages of 3 months to 9 months, but not if it means dishonesty and immorality.
Those sort of things are risky for international adoption as a whole and eclipse all the good it can do.”
Good point, Chromesthesia! It defeats the good of adoption when it is practiced unethically. Laws/statues/practices designed to eliminate unethical adoption must go hand in hand. Too much weight on either side and things can become even more unethical quickly.
And I agree about age….it’s secondary to ethical placement.
Thanks for all the great sensitive and informative comments! I appreciate your patience in helping me learn and understand about international adoptions!
A few of your comments will inspire further blogs on this subject.