If you feel that you do need a paid advisor, select such services very carefully and make sure you will be receiving services, information or support that your agency, a parent support group or a nonprofit organization isn’t already offering. Many public agencies and nonprofit organizations can match you with experienced adoptive parents or adoption professionals who will help you navigate the adoption process from beginning to end, at little or no cost.
Before deciding whether domestic or intercountry adoption is best for you and your family, become familiar with the process, requirements, costs and post-placement services available in your state for both types of adoption. Also, learn about the different needs of children adopted domestically versus internationally. For example, older children adopted from non-English speaking countries face language, cultural and educational barriers. They may also have different health problems such as malnourishment, cleft palates or bone malformation, as well as significant developmental delays and attachment difficulties.
Intercountry adoptions to the United States increased after World War II and reached their peak in the 1990s. After World War II, a number of children, both orphans and children of parents in the military, were adopted from Europe to the United States. The next big wave was Korean adoptions after the Korean War. During and after the Vietnam War, a number of families adopted Vietnamese children. After the fall of communism, thousands of children were adopted from Russia and Eastern and Central Europe. At the same time, due to its one-child policy and the value of male children over female children, China became a major country for intercountry adoption of mostly females. Intercountry adoption started as a humanitarian response from families or individuals in other countries (typically high-income or western industrialized countries) responding to the needs of children left orphaned or abandoned as a result of war.
Intercountry adoption now reflects a different scenario based on changes that started in the 1960s. Since then, there have been a number of sociological changes in high-resource countries including high infertility rates, later age of marriage with women’s increased participation in the labor market, the social acceptance of single parenthood and the availability of legal abortions.1 One result has been that the demand for available infants to adopt is more than the number of infants eligible for adoption within high-resource countries. This has contributed to increased intercountry adoption and the emergence of the role that money plays within the intercountry adoption process, according to Dr. Peter Selman.2 In some instances, intercountry adoption has been viewed not from a child rights perspective but rather from a right-to-a-child perspective.3 That is to say the demand for adoptive children has driven the availability of children, which can lead to unethical practices and illegal activities such as child trafficking, baby buying or the abduction and sale of children, according to David M. Smolin in his report for the Valparaiso Law Review.4 In areas where disasters have recently taken place, both natural and human-made, this is a very specific concern.
The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in 1989, The Hague Convention of 29 May 1993 on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (The Hague Convention) and the UN Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children (2009) provide a child rights-based framework for intercountry adoption. These legal instruments act as guides as to how intercountry adoption should be practiced. In particular, The Hague Convention established international standards of practice for intercountry adoptions including transparency, protections against child trafficking and agency accreditation.5 In 2008, the United States began abiding by Hague Convention rules. According to the US Department of State, if only one country in adoption is a Hague Convention country, both countries must follow Hague Convention procedures, practices and rules. In practice, this is not happening. Americans adopting from non-Hague countries are advised to proceed with caution or reconsider their decision to adopt from these countries. The regulations that protect children and families do not exist in non-Hague countries and the process is less certain. As one adoptive parent we interviewed said, “Hague treaty countries are more predictable during the adoption process [i.e. China, Bulgaria] and might be a better fit for first-time adopters. You are officially matched with your child earlier in the process.”
You may be familiar with recent media controversies concerning intercountry adoption. There was the story of the American adoptive mother who sent her son back to Russia alone on a plane. There are stories about abuse of intercountry adoptees as well as “rehoming,” in which adoptive parents advertise for new homes for their adoptees in online discussion forums. While a rare occurrence, the children caught up in this unprofessional practice often are older intercountry adoptees and have significant special needs. Also, there are the concerns of child advocate groups, legislators and others about corruption and unsound adoption practices. Some of these concerns have been substantiated and adoption programs have been shut down.
Some argue that aid to foreign nations for the care of orphans and other impoverished children is not enough and that these children need permanent homes, even if that means they are removed from their native culture and adopted by foreign families. As Elizabeth Bartholet stated:
We assert that children’s most fundamental human rights are to live and to grow up in a nurturing family so they can fulfill their human potential. These rights have been largely ignored in the debate surrounding unparented children and related international adoption policies. We argue that unparented children have a right to be placed in families, either their original families, or if that is not feasible, then in the first available permanent nurturing families. This includes the right to be placed in international adoption if that is where families are available. We argue that children have a related right to be liberated from the conditions characterizing orphanages and most foster care.6
Others argue that US aid for international child welfare should be more focused on helping foreign nations strengthen their own families by reducing poverty and building up child welfare systems so orphans have better lives and more children are adopted by families living in their own countries.
Despite recent controversies surrounding intercountry adoption and the ongoing debate about how the United States should focus its foreign aid and other efforts when it comes to international child welfare, one fact remains: millions of children around the world do not have one of their most fundamental human rights met—the right to grow up in a loving, supportive and permanent family. UNICEF reports that there are millions of orphans throughout the world who have no permanent family or kin caregivers.7 Reflecting on this very large number, one cannot help but conclude that intercountry adoption is a vital component of child welfare; however, it should not be the only intervention.
Scandinavian countries lead the world in the rate of intercountry adoptions. The United States also is a leader in intercountry adoption but over the past ten years the number of intercountry adoptions by Americans began to decline. There are a number of reasons for this decrease, including new restrictions placed on which children may be adopted by foreigners. For example, some countries are restricting the number of infants that can be adopted internationally and allowing only special needs or older child adoptions by foreigners. Some nations are building up their own domestic adoption programs in response to high domestic demand for infants or to reduce the number of infants and children being removed from their native cultures. Intercountry adoptions have also slowed down due to Americans’ concerns about child trafficking in foreign countries and their mistrust of foreign adoption agencies and programs. The decrease is also because some countries’ adoption programs simply have been shut down due to corruption or non-adherence to Hague treaty standards.
The Russian international adoption program was discontinued in 2013, ostensibly in response to stories about abuse and abandonment