On the question of domestic or international adoption, here’s a perspective from Europe.
The relationship between institutional care and the international adoption of children in Europe
This is a survey of 33 European countries which shows an association between international adoption and a high number of children in institutional care. Rather than reducing the number of children in institutions international adoption may contribute to the continuation of institutional care and hinder the development of children’s services nationally. This is true for both sending and receiving countries in Europe.
Just to remind a-parents out there about their children’s rights, here are some recommendations from the Council of Europe (italics provided).
- The Assembly affirms that all children have rights, as set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and, in particular, the right to know and be brought up by their parents in so far as this is possible. The purpose of international adoption must be to provide children with a mother and a father in a way that respects their rights, not to enable foreign parents to satisfy their wish for a child at any price; there can be no right to a child.
- The Assembly therefore fiercely opposes the current transformation of international adoption into nothing short of a market regulated by the capitalist laws of supply and demand, and characterised by a one-way flow of children from poor states or states in transition to developed countries. It roundly condemns all crimes committed in order to facilitate adoption, as well as the commercial tendencies and practices that include the use of psychological or financial pressure on vulnerable families, the arranging of adoptions directly with families, the conceiving of children for adoption, the falsification of paternity documents and adoption via the Internet.
- It wishes to alert European public opinion to the fact that, sadly, international adoption can lead to the disregard of children’s rights and that it does not necessarily serve their best interests. In many cases, receiving countries perpetuate misleading notions about children’s circumstances in their countries of origin and a stubbornly prejudiced belief in the advantages for a foreign child of being adopted and living in a rich country. The present tendencies of international adoption go against the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which stipulates that if a child is deprived of his or her family the alternative solutions considered must pay due regard to the desirability of continuity in the child’s upbringing and to his or her ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic background.
No, Virginia, there is no right to a child.
7 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 1, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Jae Ran
I finally had the chance to read this report. I’m not sure I can agree, at least based on this particular writing of the research, that it proves that international adoption contributes to the continuation of institutionalization for children – but that said, the fact that it doesn’t reduce the numbers is compelling.
One of the most startling findings for me was that some of the countries – in particular France – had the highest number of institutionalized children in the EU along with the highest number of incoming international adoptions. Which is like the United States, where families are choosing to adopt internationally even as there are children in institutional care in the home country.
The report states, “In most parts of Western Europe, parental rights tend to be heavily defended in the courts, whereas in the majority of Eastern European countries such rights are rarely considered before a child is placed for adoption.”
This statement speaks volumes to me.
July 2, 2008 at 11:32 am
gabriela63
It’s hard to prove direct causality, which I’m sure the authors are aware. Thus they conclude in less than robust terms, “However, it could be
questioned as to why there are still large numbers of children in institutional care after decades of international adoption across Europe if international adoption has been effective in deinstitutionalising children.”
It would be helpful to know the whole range of factors driving supply of institutionalized children, differentiated between receiving countries and sending countries, and how these may be interconnected. Other authors have posited that demand in rich countries creates supply in poor countries, just as in any capitalist market. “A booming trade,” according to the Innocenti Digest. In this case one wouldn’t expect a decline in institutionalized children. But you’re right, Jae Ran, more research needs to be done.
July 2, 2008 at 6:40 pm
sinoangle
Just to speak to the case in France, there are a number of factors why there are high numbers of institutionalised children and high numbers of IA. The two main ones are that 1) the courts defend the right of families to remain together (good), but do not defend the right of children to a home (bad); 2) adopting parents are discouraged from the get-go of attempting domestic adoption, and are told that the wait times are at least six to seven years and that there are hardly any babies (which of course assumes that everyone wants a baby…).
Regarding 1), many social workers will tell you that it only takes a postcard a year for the courts to judge that contact between parents and children is being maintained. In addition, they say, this postcard often comes just after a warning letter that if the parents continue to withhold contact, their parental rights will be terminated. I’m assuming that the dossiers are more complicated than this, but surely, there must be cases where the children could be freed to be loved by another family.
Regarding 2), there is no support and guidance by social workers with PAPs to explore children who are not babies. I believe (from what I’ve seen) that the UK encourages PAPs to adopt domestically, and makes them pay the costs of the government approval services if they choose to adopt internationally. In France, all of this is free. Should you ask for an older child, say a toddler, you will be actively discouraged.
This seems to be linked to the fact that many people who adopt domestically in France (the vast majority), adopt new-born (or almost) babies that were “born under X”. This outrageous law allows women to sign an X on the birth certificate and legally abandon their baby, who will have no knowledge of his or her parentage. These babies are the ones proposed to PAPs, and seem to be the only “adoptable” children when social services are questioned.
So what perspective does that give you?
July 3, 2008 at 3:31 am
JR
Interesting! Regarding France, and I’m no expert for sure, I think it’s an example somewhat similar to what happened in the US a short time ago when public child welfare was all about family preservation and it could take years for a court to issue a TPR (terminate the parent’s rights) – meanwhile the kids were being bounced from foster home to foster home because foster parents were told not to attach, not to bond because it was “bad” for the kids. Gah, that is just so frustrating. Although I am an advocate of family preservation when reasonable. I guess that’s the conundrum though – how does one know what’s reasonable? My own experiences is that it’s difficult and needs to be thoughtfully and carefully considered each case.
I think in the US anyway, the problem is having a system that has a blank, cookie-cutter system that all families are squeezed into and that doesn’t work. I don’t know the answers, I just keep researching and reading and listening to what’s happening in the field and try to balance it all in my minds.
Regarding 2) in France, it seems that up until a few years ago it was the same in the US – pretty much not exploring the adoption of older kids. How interesting to learn that in France the gov’t requires the PAP’s to pay for services if it is an international adoption.
I would love to see more meta-analysis done on European and US adoption practices and policies. I know that I personally would like to see what the larger patterns are. Reading Peter Seleman’s research on geographic patterns regarding international adoption (both sending and receiving countries) was eye-opening.
gabriela63, I agree that the researchers were careful in how they worded it the correlation they I guess from the title and abstract it seemed a little leading (to me) – but the end result was thought provoking and definitely, I look forward to more research on the subject.
July 3, 2008 at 5:15 pm
panracial
Actually in the US there isn’t a cookie cutter system. There are two racialized systems. Whites are more likely to be offered therapy, food stamps, and family preservation while blacks/latinos are more likely to have kids removed and parental rights terminated. See Shattered Bonds by Dorothy Roberts.
July 3, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Jae Ran
Yes, you are right Panracial, that there is institutionalized racism embedded in the child protection and child welfare system, and I have read Dorothy Roberts book Shattered Bonds several times. I’m not saying that all people are treated equally – but I still stand by what I wrote. I invite you to read some posts I wrote http://harlowmonkey.typepad.com/harlows_monkey/2007/02/in_trying_to_fi.html
I’m saying that in my work experience in child welfare, there are “evidence-based assessment tools” that are used on everyone – not saying that there isn’t bias in how the tools are used (that itself would be several posts worth).
I believe there IS an expectation that one-size-fits-all is a mentality that public child welfare workers and agencies believe in. Outside of the racism that leads workers to treat families differently. The laws have one set of rules and regulations that are supposed to fit for all families – the workers are biased in how they actually assess the families and the services are offered. Both happen at the same time.
July 4, 2008 at 3:10 am
panracial
I followed your link — that’s a good analysis.