what's happening in the adoption community?

Origins-USA.org announces it’s
Mothers’ Stories Project


Origins-USA launched the Mothers' Stories Project to gather stories of mothers who lost children to adoption. If you are a mother who lost a child to adoption or had her parental rights terminated, we invite you to SHARE YOUR STORY!  The stories will be posted on the Origins-USA website, and may be disseminated in a book, video, and/or other format.  The project will help other mothers know they are not alone and help the public to understand how the loss of a child affects women and why we need alternatives to adoption. We will also use it to build our database of mothers from around the country who are willing to be contacted by journalists and share their stories in the media.   Mothers living outside the United States are also encouraged to share their stories!

SHARE YOUR STORY IN YOUR OWN WORDS!


The Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption and Jockey Being Families are both conducting brief online surveys for adoptive parents regarding the need, use, and availability of post adoption services. The Dave Thomas survey is at www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=jjvJ4R0JMAJuF84CuUjoRA_3d_3d.  The Jockey survey is at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=x7M2f3xCs5KHPcy_2f7wnbVQ_3d_3d


Deemphasis on Race in Adoptions Questioned__._,_.___ 

By RON NIXON

WASHINGTON — Minority children in foster care are being ill-served by a federal law that plays down race and culture in adoptions, a report released on Tuesday said.

The report, based on an examination of the law’s impact over a decade, said that minority children adopted into white households face special challenges and that white parents need preparation and training for what might lie ahead.

But it found that social workers and state agencies fear litigation and stiff penalties under the law for even discussing race with adopting couples. As a result, families often do not get the counseling they need. It also found that states have ignored an aspect of the law that requires diligent recruitment of black parents.

The report recommends that the law — the Multiethnic Placement Act, which covers agencies receiving federal dollars and promotes a color-blind approach — be amended to permit agencies to consider race and culture as one of many factors when selecting parents for children from foster care.

The report was issued by the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, a nonprofit adoption advocacy and research organization based in New York. Several child welfare organizations — including the Child Welfare League of America, the Adoption Exchange Association, the National Association of Black Social Workers, Voice for Adoption and the Foster Care Alumni of America — have endorsed the report.

The report points out that transracial adoption itself does not produce psychological or other social problems in children, but that these children often face major challenges as the only person of color in an all-white environment, trying to cope with being different.

“The idea of being color-blind is great, and we’d all like to get there,” said Adam Pertman, executive director of the Adoption Institute. “But the reality is that we live in a very race-conscious society, and that needs to be addressed. We can’t simply pretend that the problem doesn’t exist and leave it up to the child to cope.”

Many transracial adoptees say they struggle to fit in among their own family members. Shannon Gibney, 33, a writer in Minneapolis who describes herself as biracial, was adopted by a white couple who tried their best by providing things like books by black authors.

“But having books and other things about blacks is no substitute for actual experience,” Ms. Gibney said. “When I had questions about even little things like how to wear my hair, there was no one around to help me with my questions.”

“This validates my experience,” Ms. Gibney added, when informed of the study. “I’m glad they recognize the fact that you just can’t say we’re all human or love will be enough.”

The report comes as the current federal law and polices governing consideration of race in adoption are being examined by the United States Commission on Civil Rights. It seems certain to add to the often heated debate among social workers and the public about the proper role of race in adoption, which has gone on since white couples began adopting minority children in larger numbers in the 1970s.

Christine M. Calpin, associate commissioner at the Administration for Children and Families at the Department of Health and Human Services, had not seen the report, but she said the law had helped minority children in foster care find permanent homes.

“I have not seen any research which suggests that federal law has not been beneficial to minority children,” Ms. Calpin said. “We have seen what happens when race is allowed to be a consideration. Children are waiting longer in foster care to be adopted.”

Congress passed the Multiethnic Placement Act in 1994 after several white couples said they had not been provided the opportunity to adopt minority children. The law prohibits delaying or denying a child’s foster care or adoptive placement on the basis of race or nationality.

The original law did allow race to be used as one of many criteria for evaluating parents for adoption. But two years later, after white couples said they were still being denied the opportunity to adopt minority children, Congress passed an amendment that said race could not be used as a criterion.

Supporters of the current law say it has led to an increase in transracial adoptions and a decrease in the amount of time minority children spend in foster care before being adopted.

An examination by The New York Times of the 2000 census — the first in which information on adoptions was collected — showed that just over 16,000 white households included adopted black children. Data from the Department of Health and Human Services shows that the adoption of black children by white couples has gone up each year since 1998, to 26 percent in 2004 from 14 percent.

Those who support transracial adoptions counter that race-matching or trying to find parents from the child’s ethnic group can delay adoptions of minority children and that the practice should not be resurrected.

“The research simply argues against the broad notion that transracial adoption doesn’t work out for children,” said Rita Simon, a sociologist at American University who has written several books on transracial adoption and helped get the Mulitethnic Placement Act passed.

Ms. Simon said her 20 years of research did not show that white parents lack the ability to properly prepare children to deal with discrimination.

The new report takes issue with research that says the Multiethnic Placement Act is responsible for the increased number of minority children adopted from foster care. Minority children are still disproportionally represented in foster care. Black children, for example, make up 15 percent of all children, but they represent almost a third of children in foster care.

The report also points out that although the time a child spends in foster care has declined, black children still wait an average of nine months longer than white children before they are adopted. The report also cites one study that found that only 5 percent of white parents who express some willingness to adopt a black child in foster care actually did so.

According to the report, some of the delay could be related to relatives’ deciding to adopt, and some to the lack of enforcement of a part of the law that requires states to vigorously recruit black adoptive parents. But states are not penalized if they fail to do so.

But states can and do face stiff penalties for violating federal law by using race to deny white parents the right to adopt nonwhite children.

In 2003, social workers in Ohio were accused of discriminating against a white couple by requiring them to prepare a plan to address the child’s cultural needs and to evaluate the racial demographics of their neighborhood. The state paid $1.8 million in fines.

In 2005, a social service agency in South Carolina was fined $107,000 after workers used a database to match children to prospective adoptive parents, which the federal government said overemphasized race. These two examples have led litigation-jittery agencies to ignore race completely in placements, the report said.

Jae Ran Kim, a social worker in Minnesota and a transracial adoptee herself, said social service agencies felt damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

“If you talk to parents about racial and cultural issues they are likely to face,” Ms. Kim said, “you risk violating the law, and if you try to recruit families through minority organizations, even that can look like you are using race.”

She added: “The law does need to reflect that fact that race is an issue in our society, and prospective white parents need to realize that this goes beyond whether you can love your child or even whether you live in a diverse neighborhood. This is about what is in the best interest of the child, not the parent.”

New England Events!

Adoption and Foster Family Night at Trinity Rep in Providence, Rhode Island!  For the most beloved production of the year,
A Christmas Carol!
Special ticket prices are from $12.50 to only $18.00 but you must buy them before November 2nd! Go to
www.trinityrep.comfor more info.

RESOLVE's upcoming day long annual conference The RESOLVE Fertility Treatment, Donor Choices and Adoption Conference on Saturday, October 25th from 8:30am-5:00 pm at the Best Western Royal Plaza Hotel in Marlborough, MA.  This day long conference has 40 sessions on: Medical Treatment for Infertility, Egg Donation, Adoption, and new this year are 4 sessions on Embryo Donation (for donors and potential recipients).  These session speakers are the top doctors, therapists, social workers and agencies in the infertility and family building field and come from all over New England to speak at the conference.  The practical, emotional, psychological, legal, and ethical issues of all of these family building choices will be covered at the conference.
Terri Davidson can speak to you about the Embryo Donation portion of the conference as she is the public relations person for this portion of the conference.  The Embryo Donation portion is supported by a grant from Health and Human Services so that people attending those sessions can get reimbursed for each of the 4 sessions that they attend.  
 
Registration Forms are available on our website at www.resolveofthebaystate.org.
 
Then She Found Me 

This film has enough plot for three movies; the other two could be entitled Then He Found Me and Then I Found Me. The book upon which this movie is based, by Elinor Lipman, focused on the birth mother/adopted daughter relationship. Helen Hunt, who also directs and stars, evidently did not find that compelling enough, so she pimped out the script with ex/sex and boyfriend drama. 

Helen Hunt is April Epner, a frumpy married teacher for whom neither matrimony nor conception is working out. She wants a baby but her mama's-boy-husband Ben (played by a pasty, pudgy Matthew Broderick) doesn't want a baby and doesn't want her, and he suddenly and inexplicably dumps her. In the real world, this loser would be the dumped, not the dumper.
Then, just as suddenly and inexplicably, April meets and is fallen in love with, by Frank, played by Colin Firth, a lonely single father of one of her students. Apparently April isn't frumpy after all, she just needed to comb her hair and put on some lipstick.
We find out right away that April is an adoptee. As she and her brother keep vigil at her dying mother's bedside, she tries to explain why, as an adopted child who knows nothing about her biological roots, she is so desperate to have a baby. Nobody understands or cares: she is encouraged to get over her annoying obsession with having a child of her own and just "go get a Chinese baby."  In one fell swoop, the movie manages to belittle the real pain of infertility and insult Chinese babies. Onto this already crowded field 
sashays Bernice, April's birth mother, played by Bette Midler. Bernice is chutzpah personified, a successful talk show personality whose arrival in April's tattered life seems too serendipitous even for  Hollywood, until we find out Bernice has basically been stalking her birth daughter. April is first approached in a restaurant by an employee of Bernice's and to all those adoptees out there I just want to reassure you: It NEVER happens that way in real life! 
April reacts with immediate hostility, understandable perhaps at the beginning, but she never lets up. Throughout the movie she is rude, self righteous, contemptuous and downright cruel to her birth mother. April instinctively senses that underneath Bernice's cheerful brashness lurks a deep and abiding guilt and she exploits it for all it's worth. Literally. Okay, we get it: April is punishing Bernice for giving her up for adoption.   
    
As for Bernice, she hangs an invisible "Kick Me" sign around her neck and spends the rest of the movie either bending over or rolling over.  
    
One of the few authentic moments in the movie is when Bernice says to April, "Do you have a question you wanna ask me? Ask me anything you want..." and although we already know what's coming, it's both powerful and poignant when April immediately asks, "Why did you give me up?" 

 That, of course, is the essential question that most adoptees desperately want the answer to and often are afraid to ask. However, there's another moment when Bernice actually gets down on her knees in a public place to beg April to give her another chance. I thought: Wait a damn minute! Why is this woman on her knees? She's not a serial killer; she is a woman who got pregnant when she was just a kid herself!Bernice tells April that she was only fifteen when she found herself pregnant; that the baby's father took a powder and her father kicked her out of the house, but April is colder than a snowy night in February, showing nary a drop of pity or compassion. More offensive to me even than the begging scene is when April's brother suggests that, hey, if your birth mother really feels so bad, let her make it up to you by putting her money where her mouth is. He urges April to make Bernice buy her something expensive like a house or a vacation. This, from the guy who said that growing up a natural son with an adoptive sister, was "exhausting." 
    
SPOILER ALERT! If you have had your fill of insensitivity, don't read on because the ending of this movie may cause you to explode!
Asking her birth mother for luxury items is apparently too crass even for April, so instead, after the miscarriage of a baby whose father is her estranged husband Ben (don't ask!)  she emotionally extorts Bernice into paying for fertility treatments, which probably cost more than a house and vacation put together.  
Alas, the treatments don't work anyway, and how do we know this? The last scene of the movie is Frank, Beatrice and April at a kitchen table. April pulls a little girl up onto her lap and, guess what?

The little girl is Chinese.

 This movie should come with a disclaimer: Nobody actually touched by adoption had anything to do with the making of this movie!   

 First Juno, now Then She Found Me...despite what the critics say, neither one of these movies have a heart, or a clue.

 Juno
Juno is a sharp and funny film. It will doubtless win awards. It is bright, smart and witty with a charming cast of characters and not a stereotype in sight. Ellen Page, who plays Juno, is a brilliant actor and if you want to see more of her (and you will!) rent the 2006 indie film Hard Candy and see how she takes on an internet predator.
Juno herself is a sardonic, self-deprecating 16 year old who has sex with a guy she's "in like" with, and then finds herself pregnant.  At first she wants to have an abortion, but changes her mind when a picketing pro-life classmate informs her that the baby already has "fingernails." She then decides to put her baby up for adoption and finds the perfect adoptive parents in the Pennysaver want ads next to "exotic pets."
As a birth mother of "Pre-Roe V" vintage, I was struck at how times have apparently changed for pregnant teens. Juno's father and stepmother take her news extremely well, even though they would have preferred her to be on hard drugs or driving under the influence rather than being pregnant. Juno continues to go to high school where she acts coolly nonchalant on the outside but deep down knows she has become an object of fascination and derision. She hopes the other students see her as a
"cautionary whale."
Juno's rapid-fire zingers are often simultaneously hysterical and shocking. When she refers to her baby as "a sea monkey", for instance, I laughed out loud and then immediately chastised myself for laughing. The rest of the audience seemed to have the same dilemma: "Should I be laughing at this?" Finally we all gave in to the hilarious irreverence and then we couldn't stop laughing!
The baby's father, Bleeker (played by Michael Cera) is a gawky track geek, impossible to hate, easy to love. But his lack of responsibility nagged at me. Isn't a birth father's no-accountability usually a big factor in a birth mother's decision to give her baby up for adoption? His fathering of Juno's baby is viewed around school as an accomplishment. Even Juno's father tells his wife: "I didn't think he had it in him!" Some things, I guess, never change.
The film goes from lightly comic to darkly humorous when Juno and her father meet with the prospective adoptive parents in their brick McMansion. Vanessa and Mark Loring are a beautiful yuppie couple played by Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman. They have their lawyer present, with adoption papers already drawn up. I wanted to hate them, I really did, sterile as they were in more ways than one. But this movie doesn't do cliche, and I found myself liking them, especially Jennifer Garner's character, whose desire for a child of her own is so naked, intense and poignant. There is a scene in which Vanessa kneels at Juno's feet and speaks to the baby in her belly: a scene so heartbreakingly sweet and sad that those of us blessed with the ability to conceive children may begin to understand the torment of those who cannot.
SPOILER ALERT for the rest of this article!! Do not read on if you want to be surprised by the ending of this movie!
Actually, I was not only surprised but angry at the end of this movie. Because Juno decides, despite the fact that the Lorings plan to divorce, to give the baby to Vanessa anyway.
What??
Theretofore I'd been impressed with the way this film dealt so compassionately with teen pregnancy. The movie certainly took pains to show that Juno had a warm and loving relationship with her father and stepmother. In real life, wouldn't such good people decide to keep this baby in their family, their own flesh and blood for god's sake? In the movie, the question never even comes up! And when Juno has a chance to make this an "open adoption" she turns it down flat. Why is never explored; but you get the impression that either she doesn't want to make the effort or she thinks it might upset the adoptive couple. Again, this is a very sharp and witty movie but the script was written by somebody completely clueless about adoption, especially from the adoptee's point of view.
In fact, the baby is never really humanized: unborn, he's a "sea monkey"; born, he's a tuna cassarole, handed over hot from the oven like a housewarming gift to a new neighbor. The movie ends with a slender again Juno playing a guitar duet with Bleeker. I guess the ending is supposed to be sweet and pregnant with possibilities. But to me, it looked like two self centered teenagers, rid of an inconvenient burden, have reverted right back to living in oblivion, that pesky bump in the road safely behind them. I wondered if the two of them would one day marry, and if so, would they be haunted by the child they gave away? How could they not?
Witty and funny as Juno may be, all the hip quips in the world can't cover over its essential heartlessness. If the scriptwriters and producers had put this child's welfare first, this would have been a very different movie indeed. Worthy of an award...

USA Today article on adoptee access to original birth records 

The New York Times



February 19, 2008

Lowering Odds of Multiple Births

Correction Appended

In the complex, expensive and emotionally charged world of fertility treatment, doctors are sounding a call to arms to reverse the soaring rate of multiple births.

The doctors are responding to an unintended consequence of the success of in vitro fertilization — that it is often too successful. Since 1980, when the technique became available in the United States, the rate of twins in all births has climbed 70 percent, to 3.2 percent of births in 2004.

Much of the increase, experts say, is a result of in vitro treatment. The rate of triplets and higher-order multiples increased even more from 1980 to 1998. It is not that twins or triplets are undesirable, doctors say. But multiple pregnancies often lead to risky preterm births and other complications. With that in mind, fertility centers are trying to lower the odds of such pregnancies, even at a cost of slightly lower success rates.

“Now is the time for all of us to rethink what is the paradigm of a successful I.V.F. pregnancy,” said Dr. Aaron K. Styer, a reproductive endocrinologist at the Massachusetts General Hospital Fertility Center in Boston. “Is it a pregnancy without regard to the number of gestations or a pregnancy with a singleton live birth?”

In I.V.F., a woman is given ovulation-induction hormones to produce multiple eggs, which are retrieved, fertilized with her partner’s sperm and transferred back to her uterus. The more embryos transferred, the higher the likelihood of multiples.

To achieve the goal of a single healthy baby, clinics are focusing on transferring fewer embryos and on developing more sophisticated ways to identify the healthiest embryos with the greatest chance of success.

“We have been getting better at I.V.F. over the years, and as success rates go up, the number we transfer has to go down accordingly,” said Dr. Judy E. Stern, director of the human embryology and andrology lab at the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center in Lebanon, N.H. “Where three embryos used to work and give you mostly singletons, now we transfer two, because we’re making better embryos and more of them implant.”

The number of I.V.F. cycles in which four or more embryos were transferred has dropped sharply, to 21 percent in 2004 from 62 percent in 1996. Although the efforts have substantially lowered the rates of triplets born through in vitro fertilization, they have not made a dent in the twin rate. That is because many doctors and patients are reluctant to take the final step to ensure a single birth, a process called S.E.T., for single embryo transfer. From 1996 to 2004, the rate of such procedures rose modestly, to 8 percent from 6 percent.

The American Society of Reproductive Medicine now recommends that women younger than 35 with a good prognosis have just one embryo transferred. Women under 35 make up 44 percent of I.V.F. cycles.

In women older than 37, who have a higher incidence of embryos with chromosomal defects, three to five embryos are still recommended, depending on the woman’s age.

The main obstacle to single embryo transfer is its lower success rate. Some experts ask women to agree to two cycles, first transferring one fresh embryo while freezing the others. If the first transfer fails, doctors transfer a single frozen embryo, a much less costly and onerous procedure. That approach yields similar success rates to transferring two at once while drastically reducing twin rates.

With momentum building to transfer just one or two embryos, clinics focus on choosing the embryo most likely to succeed. Selecting embryos has traditionally been based on a visual examination of their morphology — shape, number of divisions and other physical factors. But morphology does not tell all, and many embryos that look great under the microscope have undetected chromosomal abnormalities like missing or extra chromosomes, called aneuploidy.

One method used to weed out unhealthy embryos is to leave the embryos in a Petri dish for five days, two more than usual, to allow more time for hidden chromosomal abnormalities to show up.

Other researchers are looking at the traits of women at high risk of having multiples. In research presented at the reproductive society’s annual meeting last October, Dr. Stern linked a higher number of oocytes, or eggs retrieved from ovaries, with higher rates of single and multiple pregnancies.

This will change our practice,” she said. “If more oocytes are retrieved, we’ll want to transfer fewer embryos.”

Other experts are turning to preimplantation genetic screening to cull embryos without aneuploidy. The screening is used to select healthy embryos in families with histories of genetic diseases. Because one or two cells have to be removed for analysis, there is some concern that the process can damage embryos, lowering pregnancy rates.

Another screening, comparative genomic hybridization, can assess all 23 pairs of chromosomes, providing an 80 percent chance of a healthy embryo and a 60 percent chance of a live birth, says Dr. Geoffrey Sher, executive medical director of the Sher Institutes of Reproductive Medicine, a nationwide group of fertility centers.

But Dr. Sher, whose lab performs this procedure, has encountered the same obstacles as others. He has a very high twin rate, hovering around 60 percent, because although the technique yields a higher success rate, women are refusing to have just one embryo implanted.

Many women in fertility treatment say that they simply do not view having twins as a risky situation and that they are willing, if not eager, to have them to speed the completion of their family, to avoid the high costs of future I.V.F. cycles or to ensure that their child has a sibling, among other reasons.

For a couple in Brooklyn who asked that just the woman’s first name be used to protect their privacy, six years of infertility and several failed procedures was enough. When the woman, Marie, was 28, they requested that three embryos be transferred, even though their doctor advised transferring two.

“I wanted a set of twins,” Marie said. “It is such a complicated and sometimes painful thing to go through I.V.F., and to have to go through it all again for a second child was just a waste for me.”

In the third in vitro cycle, last June, Marie became pregnant, with triplets. At four weeks, she lost a fetus. At four and a half months, she lost the entire pregnancy.

She was devastated, she said, but she added, “I don’t regret my decision.”

Though it is widely accepted that carrying three or more fetuses can have serious complications, some fertility specialists do not view a pregnancy with twins as risky, as long as the patient is carefully monitored.

“Yes, twin delivery has more risk than singleton delivery, but with good obstetrical care and educated patients, the risk of twin delivery is minimally higher,” said Dr. Norbert Gleicher, medical director of the Center for Human Reproduction in New York.

Carrying twins or higher-order multiples raises the risk of preterm births; low-birth-weight babies, with the possibility of death in very premature infants; long-term health problems; and pregnancy complications, including pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes and Caesarean section. Studies show that 56 percent of I.V.F. twins born in 2004 weighed less than 5.5 pounds, and 65 percent were born prematurely, before 37 weeks of gestation.

Still, many patients take comfort in the improvements in neonatal care. The survival rate for newborns over 2 pounds 3 ounces is 85 percent. And many people just see the adorable twins cooing in the double strollers crisscrossing Central Park — not the ones that do not make it out of neonatal intensive care — or the fetus that was eliminated in a medical procedure called a reduction to improve the chance of survival for the remaining fetus or fetuses.

Along with changes to in vitro fertilization, experts say, physicians need to improve monitoring drugs used to enhance ovulation.

“The biggest problem with high multiples is coming from ovulation induction,” said Dr. Richard P. Dickey, chief of reproductive endocrinology and infertility at Louisiana State University Medical School in New Orleans.

If ovaries are too aggressively stimulated with hormones, a woman can produce a nest full of eggs and increase her risk of having triplets, quadruplets and even sextuplets. All ovulation-induction cycles should be closely monitored, and the cycles that produce too many oocytes should be canceled, Dr. Dickey said.

The biggest obstacles to reducing twins in infertility treatment are not medical, experts said, but the lack of insurance coverage, as well as pressure from patients to be aggressive.

“People have to recognize that there’s a connection between cost and how the treatment is going to play out,” said Barbara Collura, executive director of Resolve, a patient advocacy organization for people with infertility. “If you have $10,000 that you’ve begged, borrowed and stolen for this one I.V.F. cycle, you’re not going to say, ‘Please just transfer one.’ ”

Even doctors in the vanguard of the trend face resistance from patients like Marie.

Despite her pregnancy loss, she said, “With all the hard work I put into getting pregnant, I’d just rather have a set of twins than a singleton.”

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: February 20, 2008
An article in Science Times on Tuesday about the higher risks involved in multiple births misstated the meaning of the term “vanishing twin.” It is a miscarriage of one twin, not a fetus eliminated in a medical procedure called a reduction.

 

UNICEF's position on Inter-country adoption

 

UNICEF has received many enquiries from families hoping to adopt children from countries other than their own.  UNICEF believes that all decisions relating to children, including adoptions, should be made with the best interests of the child as the primary consideration. The Hague Convention on International Adoptions is an important development, for both adopting families and adopted children, because it promotes ethical and transparent processes, undertaken in the best interests of the child.  UNICEF urges national authorities to ensure that, during the transition to full implementation of the Hague Convention, the best interests of each individual child are protected.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child, which guides UNICEF’s work, clearly states that every child has the right to know and be cared for by his or her own parents, whenever possible.  Recognising this, and the value and importance of families in children’s lives, UNICEF believes that families needing support to care for their children should receive it, and that alternative means of caring for a child should only be considered when, despite this assistance, a child’s family is unavailable, unable or unwilling to care for him or her.

For children who cannot be raised by their own families, an appropriate alternative family environment should be sought in preference to institutional care which should be used only as a last resort and as a temporary measure. Inter-country adoption is one of a range of care options which may be open to children, and for individual children who cannot be placed in a permanent family setting in their countries of origin, it may indeed be the best solution.  In each case, the best interests of the individual child must be the guiding principle in making a decision regarding adoption.

Over the past 30 years, the number of families from wealthy countries wanting to adopt children from other countries has grown substantially. At the same time, lack of regulation and oversight, particularly in the countries of origin, coupled with the potential for financial gain, has spurred the growth of an industry around adoption, where profit, rather than the best interests of children, takes centre stage.  Abuses include the sale and abduction of children, coercion of parents, and bribery. 

Many countries around the world have recognised these risks, and have ratified the Hague Convention on Inter-Country Adoption.  UNICEF strongly supports this international legislation, which is designed to put into action the principles regarding inter-country adoption which are contained in the Convention on the Rights of the Child.  These include ensuring that adoption is authorised only by competent authorities, that inter-country adoption enjoys the same safeguards and standards which apply in national adoptions, and that inter-country adoption does not result in improper financial gain for those involved in it.  These provisions are meant first and foremost to protect children, but also have the positive effect of providing assurance to prospective adoptive parents that their child has not been the subject of illegal and detrimental practices.

The case of children separated from their parents and communities during war or natural disasters merits special mention.  It cannot be assumed that such children have neither living parents nor relatives. Even if both their parents are dead, the chances of finding living relatives, a community and home to return to after the conflict subsides exist.  Thus, such children should not be considered for inter-country adoption, and family tracing should be the priority. This position is shared by UNICEF, UNHCR, the International Confederation of the Red Cross, and international NGOs such as the Save the Children Alliance.

 

 

 





Host of Speaking of Adoption
Donna Montalbano

Web Hosting Companies