Power dynamics exist within our relationships. And nowhere is this more true than within international adoption, where rich, usually white people from “first world” countries select babies from “third world” countries. The justification? Those children need homes.
And this is said repeatedly as a mantra, and in opposition to any criticisms of international adoption or calls for ethical reform.
Depriving children of loving homes. Providing homeless children with permanent, nurturing parents. Wrongly penalizing all those homeless children who could otherwise find nurturing adoptive homes, condemning them to institutions or to the streets.
Love for homeless kids. What could be simpler? Open those gates and pass all those children out to anybody who wants one.
But how can anybody read these types of statements without examining them?
In recent years, Guatemala has been a model for those who believe in adoption as a vehicle for providing homeless children with permanent, nurturing parents.
But there is no hard evidence that payments are systematically used in any country to induce birth parents to surrender their children.
Wait, Guatemala has been a model? And there is no evidence that payments are used as inducements? Bartholet, an educated person, believes this in 2007? I heard stories of corruption in Guatemalan adoption more than seven years ago. How can anybody who asserts “Guatemala has been a model” have any credibility at all?
If Guatemala has been a model of anything, it has been a model of the inequalities that exist among those who adopt and the parents of those children. But of course we’re talking about reinforcing the viewpoint of those who wish to adopt over the children or their parents:
Ironically, these policies are why Guatemala attracted the attention of UNICEF and other human rights organizations that, along with our State Department, have been pushing for adoption “reform.” These official “friends of children” have created pressure that has led to the cessation of international adoption in half the countries that in recent decades had been sending the largest number of homeless children abroad. Until recent years, the number of international adoptions into the United States had been steadily increasing, but the numbers are dramatically down.
Note the use of scare quotes. Those evil people don’t want “reform,” they want to take our children away! (I find it problematic for prospective adoptive parents to talk about “their children” when they haven’t even laid their mitts on those kids, but whatever.) You can clearly see those “friends of children” are not true friends at all because they just want children to be homeless!
So there you have it. Either you hand over all those kids, or you’re a bad person who is anti-adoption. Because the system is all about making those in power happy. And it works best if everybody believes that we have altruistic motives.
And as an aside, ten bucks says Elizabeth Bartholet is a white adoptive parent to kids from Latin America. Any takers?
13 comments
Comments feed for this article
November 9, 2007 at 4:32 am
JR
She is. It’s a fact.
November 9, 2007 at 4:45 am
JR
Oh, I should add, her two adopted sons are from Peru. She also has a biological son.
November 9, 2007 at 12:48 pm
resistance
Worse than I thought. Apparently she adopted back in 1985. So she’s not just some newly-giddy parent with a cute little baby.
How come nobody ever bets me?
November 9, 2007 at 3:00 pm
JR
Because you’d win!
November 10, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Sue
I wish there was money to be made in supporting families so that they may remain intact. Instead, the money is in the exploitation. And I don’t see an end to it. Not only is there money in them-thar hills, there is a whole massive mythology wrapped in the conundrum that keeps us exploiters hidden deeply in denial about our actions.
I was thanked today by one of my daughter’s countrymen for my heroicism as an adoptor. I responded vaguely and politely. He was so solicitous and desired nothing other than to be complimentary–that I couldn’t bring myself to say that I adopted selfishly and if I knew then what I know now, I would never have participated in the international morass that occurs in the guise of the childrens’ best interest.
Why is this rescuer mentality so much more appealing when done overseas anyway? I know why we personally made the decision. But that’s not all that relevant to the bigger picture. The lack of sympathy for children in crisis in our own country stands out in stark contrast to the gushing about children of adoption-sending countries.
November 12, 2007 at 12:14 am
kattycake
While I certainly do not think that the Guatemala program was ever a model, I also
do not unilaterally condemn international adoption.
I am very glad that I adopted my children, although I am also aware of the losses they incurred in order for that to happen.
November 12, 2007 at 2:32 pm
sinoangle
Sue said:
“Why is this rescuer mentality so much more appealing when done overseas anyway? I know why we personally made the decision. But that’s not all that relevant to the bigger picture. The lack of sympathy for children in crisis in our own country stands out in stark contrast to the gushing about children of adoption-sending countries.”
One word: OBJECTIFICATION.
They are not little human beings, they are “china dolls” (delicate, fragile porcelain in most AP’s minds), and brown-skinned ones with puppy-dog eyes and “exotic” hair. Their only misfortune is to have been born in the wrong country. Their only problems are to have not had enough to eat and enough love.
Adopting domestically for most western countries means adopting “abused” children – real, live human beings with problems you don’t necessarily feel up to dealing with. Behavioural problems that RESULT from being deprived of nutritious food and of parental love and guidance. We know that human beings don’t deal well with these things. We know it won’t be easy.
And yet the international adoption community can’t seem to apply the same thinking to children from other countries. Because, in their minds, they are not children, just as their parents and other people of the same nationality and race are not real live human beings with feelings.
November 12, 2007 at 5:18 pm
kattycake
Again, I don’t think the Guatemala program has ever been a model of IA.
As for domestic adoption, I think Harlow’s Monkey just posted a series of articles by the NYtimes. The second article states that many children remain in foster care to preserve family unit. Foster parents can be biologically related to their foster children for economic reasons, such as health care and child care benefits.
I try to avoid insularity in the adoption community. I know many different kinds of families formed through adoption in my little world. One recent domestic adoption involved a sibling group, and according to the ap, forty families were interested in adopting these kids.
Social services can be caught up in either reporting all information and scaring families away, or not reporting all information and finding themselves in trouble later on. I wish it could be simple,
but so far, I don’t see it that way.
And finally, some families don’t qualify for domestic adoption, but do for international.
Of course, you’re right Sinoangle, some IA parents objectify children, and I think that is very sad.
November 12, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Sue
Sinoangle: excellent point. I think you are very right. I hadn’t thought of it that way but like, duh.
November 12, 2007 at 11:57 pm
A
I do have a question though.
If some families don’t qualify for domestic adoption, why should they qualify for international?
Should the same standards apply to all children no matter where they were born? I
November 13, 2007 at 1:54 am
kattycake
A,
if the same standards applied, well than, ppl like Sue wouldn’t be able to adopt. very sad,
huh?
ps I think Sue is an excellent ap.
November 13, 2007 at 2:43 am
Sue
We didn’t adopt internationally because we couldn’t do it domestically. There was a time when I might have thought and/or said that but really, this isn’t the space for me to explain.
Generically speaking, I think the same laws and standards apply, in theory anyway. Enforceability is more the issue.
November 13, 2007 at 7:18 pm
kattycake
Actually, since each sending country has it’s own requirements for adoptive parents, such as age limits, health, police record, ect. there can be quite a variety of differences.
The dossier and supporting documents can also vary from program to program.
Before the Cambodia program was closed, the paperwork required was the most simple and unverifiable of any international program that I can think of.