Introduction:
I would like to read you two quotations by two adult international adoptees. One states, "International adoption isn't the answer to improving the overall plight of children in developing countries...supporters of international adoption are quiet about the children who are not adopted and left behind."

Another states, "in a world separated by fear, hatred, and prejudice, we (international adoptees) give voice to the greatness of our human spirits that can shift mind and heart to embrace and love another as a daughter, or a son, a sister, or a brother."

Although two different viewpoints on international adoption, which one is right and which is wrong? Or are they both right and wrong? What does international adoption do for the child? Today, I would like to facilitate a discussion around the issues facing international adoptions. To help us along are some questions I prepared, which you have, as a means to kick-off discussion. But, first, I would like to give you a little background on international adoption and present some of the issues at hand as well as recent developments in this area.

I. International Adoption: Past and Present
The adoption of children outside the United States began in response to the growing number of orphans in Europe, just after the second World War. Intercountry adoption (ICA) began as a solution for parentless children. War orphans and many children, fathered by American GIs, brought about an availability of children, but a few in the United States. Over the past fifty years, the reasons have evolved and the countries involved have changed, but ICA continues grow. Interestingly enough, the trend toward intercountry adoption is providing more of a solution for childless parents.

Two leading researchers in the field of international adoption, Alstein and Simon, have characterized three factors that prompt countries to engage in international adoption; civil strife or international war; an imbalance of the socioeconomic conditions among the classes in that country; and an established cooperative link between social and child welfare agencies among sending and receiving countries. In addition, there are social and cultural conditions that have increased the availability of adoptable children overseas. For example, China's solution to her population problem has been "resolved" with the one-child policy, leading to a dramatic rise of abandoned female children thus available for adoption. Other Asian countries stigmatize those children born illegitimately or of mixed-race couples, filling many institutions with children who are not adoptable in their birth country.

Alstein and Simon explained four major eras in international adoption. The first, a response to the number of homeless children in Greece and Germany, was from 1948-1953. War ravaged both countries: the civil war in Greece and WWII in Germany. There were also a small number of children adopted from Asia, predominantly from Japan, in the aftermath of the atomic bombs. However, most of them were from Europe. It is interesting to note that this was considered international adoption, but the children were, for the most part, of the same race and culture as the adoptive parents. In fact Greek-American families adopted most of the Greek children.

The second era began in the mid-1950s, at the time of the Korean War. Later, the Vietnam War also caused many orphans. The first generation of children adopted into the US was of children who were of mixed race; Asian birth mothers and American birth fathers. However, the number of Korean children adopted into the US continued to escalate. This was partly due to the growing reality that there was an increased demand for healthy infants, but a shortage of them in America. The first generation of these children were all biracial or of mixed race; Korean mothers and military fathers from differing countries. However, Korean adoptions to America continued to prevail with the latter generations of full-Korean babies. This was so for many reasons: the continual relationship with America and her charitable organizations that opened orphanages in Korea; the troubling economic situation; the reality that Korean couples were discouraged from adopting; and the perception that Korean adoptions were working so ideally. This was the onset of transracial adoption, by which the children were racially and culturally different from their parents.

Korean adoptions have been going on for more than 30 years, peaking in 1986 with 6,000- plus children that year emigrating to the US. Currently, there are more than 100,000 Korean adoptees in the US alone. At that time, other Asian countries also were participating in international adoption, Vietnam, The Philippines, Thailand, and Hong Kong.

The third wave of children came predominantly from Latin and Central America. One reason was the dramatic decrease in the availability of children from Asia. There was also the increased awareness of the deplorable economic conditions of Latin American countries, as children were left on the street, homeless and poor, often times abandoned. Another reason one researcher gives for the growing interest in Latin American adoptions, is that the governments of these countries have yet to regulate intercountry adoption and do not have specific legislation or defined policies on this issue. The perception, then, is that Latin America is easier that Asia. These adoptions began to grow in 1973, peaking at 2,500 children in 1991.

The fourth wave of children to be adopted occurred with the fall of communism, Russia and Romania becoming the primary sending countries. This was in response to the large number of institutionalized children, a product of a mandatory fertility policy in Romania. This is the first time since 1948 that a great majority of infants and children available are Caucasian. In addition, China has also released her infants for adoption, predominantly little girls.

Currently, statistics show that in 1998 there were approximately 16,000 children adopted, in the US, from abroad. The top three "sending countries" were Russia, China and South Korea, in that order, and representing 66% of all international adoptions. The top ten countries over for the past ten years are within Asia, Latin America, and Eastern Europe.

II. Perceptions vs. Reality
The media has been a strange bedfellow with international adoption. The overwhelming sentiment has been that the media have not shed a very favorable light on international adoption, but this also depends on one's perspective. Often, the press and tv are a reflection of the greater society. Thus, as media within a major receiving country, they publicize much of what in the United States has been the plight of the adopting family. One set of perceptions is that these families want a child, are willing to go to some trouble and expense to get one, and that they accept these obstacles as a given and try their best to get around them.

With that as a premise, what manifested in the press, are stories of bribery, corruption, and atrocities in the institutions of the "sending" countries. Stories accuse government officials of lining their pockets while selling their children to wealthy foreigners. This also applies to independent "agencies,"or individuals posing as legitimate agencies in the US, as well as the child welfare agencies in the sending countries. In addition, there are the middle men and baby brokers who capitalize on the "baby trade," exploiting desperate would-be parents in their attempts to create a family. Finally, there are the birth parents, usually mothers, stereotyped as poor, undereducated, sometimes unwed, and looking for a way out. In fact, little is mentioned of the pressures birth mothers are under to give their child away. One of the articles in your packet refers to one such story.

There also are inconsistencies with the language used to tell adoption stories. It largely depends on which side is being portrayed. For example, the birth mother may be described as the "biological mother" or as the "natural mother."

One last perception of international adoption is to be found in the cultural aspects of international adoption. One belief is that the adopted child loses all of its birth country's religious and cultural identity. Also the idea that all adoptees go through an identity crisis, very different from other adolescents and much more damaging. This also leads to the common misconceptions of the outcomes of international adoptions. It is believed that adoptees are so emotionally damaged and unable to "get over the issue of being adopted," that they are thus perceived as void of cultural awareness and incapable of identifying themselves as whole individuals. This in turn leads the general public to believe that international adoptions don't work.

Stereotypically, the adoption of Asian children has been hailed as the ideal. In much of the current research, children adopted from South Korea are portrayed as the "happy adoptions," the "exceptions." This feeds into the already present stereotypes of Asian Americans in this society. Much of this is fostered by the old belief that these were war-stricken children or that being from a third world country, they are grateful or lucky to be in such a prosperous country.

Adoptions of Latin American children reflect much of the same sentiment, as they have been "saved" by a country, and parents, able to provide for them in ways their birth country and family are unable to do. Not as much information has been revealed about the children from Latin America. Instead, what is relayed are the stories of what adopting parents must endure to adopt a child from this area. Most of what is known right now is about the corruption that surrounds these adoptions, to the point, in some cases, that DNA testing is conducted to assure that the mother relinquishing the child for adoption is truly the birth mother. Stories of kidnaping and bribery also prevail.

On the opposite side, there have been misconceptions about children adopted from Eastern Europe. From the outset, these children have been labeled as "damaged goods." Their institutional life has been widely publicized with the many horror stories of the difficulties of adoptive parents' in raising their new child. There is even documentation of children being returned to Europe or adoptive parents relinquishing their children for adoption again to another family, in the United States.

One aspect of international adoption that has not been discussed openly is the issue of the United States as the "sending" country. In fact, there were only two articles found about this subject, in preparation for this presentation. Though little is revealed about this practice, there are an estimated 100-500 children a year adopted out of this country to Australia, Western Europe and Canada. There is No accurate number of children adopted from America, as the US requires no exit visas and the Federal Government does not regulate foreign adoption or follow up on their progress. It has even been reported in Time that the US is one of the most accessible places to adopt children. From the perspective of the adopting parents, adopting a child from the United States is easier than in their own country, and there is a larger pool of available children. Many of these families are biracial, or of mixed-races, where the child is either African-American or biracial and the parents are Caucasian. The interesting fact is that many agencies in the US are unaware that such adoptions actually exist. This being that the adoptions are being completed by law firms instead of agencies. In fact, one organization, International Social Service/American Branch, conducts such adoptions through a law firm in the mid-West. These adoptions are the primary focus of that firm. They adopt many of their children to the Netherlands, and most of the children are African-American or biracial. As a nation that adopts internationally an estimated 16,000 children a year, there remain many more in this country that are in need of families.

What appears to stand out most regarding international adoption, is the lack of a governing body and regulations to ensure that only accredited agencies may conduct international adoptions. Throughout the articles read to prepare for this presentation, the overriding concern for members of the adoption triad is the lack of education and awareness when looking to adopt abroad. It is for that reason and the continual capitalization on human beings that led to the development of the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, in May of 1993. The Preamble presents five main points, but rather than read the whole document to you, I will only highlight some of the main points. It states that a child should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding. It recognizes that intercountry adoptions offer a permanent family to a child for whom a suitable family cannot be found in his or her state of origin. Finally, it states the need to take measures to ensure that intercountry adoptions are conducted in the best interest of the child, with respect for his or her fundamental rights; and to prevent abduction, sale of, or traffic of children. Thus, the Convention has set out norms and procedures to safeguard children involved in intercountry adoptions and to protect the interests of their birth and adoptive parents.

Most important, the Convention mandates that each country create a Central Authority to discharge duties under the convention. Other key functions for this Central Authority are to act as a liaison with the Central Authorities of other countries, to track cases, to monitor and provide assistance, to develop regulations and to ensure compliance by all agencies and countries.

Finally, the important mandate is that all intercountry adoptions must be conducted by accredited agencies determined by an accrediting body. The Hague also provides a list of provisions and criteria in accrediting agencies. This accrediting organization becomes the governing body that ensures that agencies are in compliance.

As of July 5, 1999, 25 countries have ratified the convention and 9 countries have acceded. The United States has only signed the Convention. However, the Convention and its implementing legislation, the Intercountry Adoption Act, was presented to the 106th US Congress on March 23rd, by Senator Jesse Helms and Senator Mary Landrieu. It is interesting to note, however, that the top three sending countries to the United States: Russia, China and South Korea have failed to even sign the document.

The ratification of the Hague Convention is a crucial beginning of the standardization of intercountry adoptions, especially in the US, where there are many benefitting from the lack of regulations.

However, the reality of international adoption will always be expressed best by those who have experienced it. So, I would like to draw your attention to the question that was posed in the beginning, what does international adoption do for the child? More specifically, perhaps I can begin this discussion with, how do you view international adoption?

---

POLICY AND PRACTICE

executive director's archives| public policy update| benchmark public opinion survey| americans with disabilities act| sibling placement| open records and voluntary registries| openness in adoption| Adoption Access| links