As 2007 wraps, organizations from the U.S. Government to the United Nations to every news provider on the planet are collecting data, crunching numbers and trying to find tidy ways to package the year for presentation to the world sometime after the calendar ticks over.
Already established and making headlines, the unsurprising revelation that the number of the world’s orphans finding adoptive American families has dropped significantly. What that means in the grand scheme of time passing and evolving humanity is debate fodder.
According to this report from Federal News Radio, there were 15 percent fewer international adoptions in 2007 than over the two years previous. From China alone adoptions have plummeted from 7,906 children in 2005, to 6,493 in 2006, to only 5,453 this year. With UNICEF figures calculating Chinese orphan numbers at somewhere around 20,600,000 and growing, the ratio of chance-of-family to no-chance is miniscule and shrinking.
Tightening of requirements for families hoping to adopt from China has had a negative impact. Automatic refusal now the case for people who are overweight, bearing a facial disfigurement, with hearing problems or treating depression, among other such arbitrary reasons for rejection, has eliminated thousands of potential homes for Chinese-born children.
Cultivation of a negative image of adoption from Guatemala has also served to cut the number of prospective adoptive families, and as other countries present viable options to families and children alike, they too come under fire.
The length of time it takes to complete an adoption has expanded greatly, resulting in increasing stresses on families as they fall in love with children they will not meet for possibly years while serving to sentence these same children to whatever hardship their pre-family life will bring for as long as the process takes.
Some hail this downward trend in Americans adopting from other countries as a positive step, seeing international adoption as a form of either cultural genocide, neocolonialism, unwelcome immigration into the USA, or a market-driven greed machine perpetuated by traffickers.
UNICEF, for example, takes the position that international adoption should begin to be considered only as a “last resort”, a stance many consider to be less child-focused than is healthy that results in masses of children falling through the cracks and living their entire lives in institutions or on the streets. (Or in the case of Romanian kids who lost the option of international adoption completely, under the streets.)
Dr. Elizabeth Bartholet, Professor of Law and Faculty Director of the Child Advocacy Program (CAP) at Harvard Law School, is quoted as finding the decreasing numbers of children internationally adopted as “totally depressing” and says, “UNICEF is a major force. They’ve played a major role in jumping on any country sending large number of kids abroad, identifying it as a problem, rather than a good thing.”
Those with views similar to Dr. Bartholet understand that a reduction in the number of adopted children implies little more than fewer children finding families, while genocide, colonialism, greed and trafficking saw healthy growth in 2007.
Where the numbers will be in December 2008 is anybody’s guess, and with estimates putting the global count of orphans at around 200,000,000 each child finding a safe and loving home will remove the burden resting on the shoulders of the others … just a bit.
A collection of my short stories:
I'm in this one, too ...
And I'm in here, as well ...
Paradise Preoccupied 
I really appreciate this post. Hopefully it will dissuade some international adoptive parents from their adoption guilt. Hopefully they will be able to see the bigger picture and stop feeling bad for “stealing” their child’s birth culture from them by bringing them to America.
Sandra,
In your research, what was the plan for improving the life of children now denied a home outside of their country….domestic adoption? kinship adoption? fairy godmother?
Did you come across any plans from the nay sayers for improving the lives of these orphans/abandoned children? Because surely we wouldn’t deny children a home abroad out of a misguided sense of ethnic responsibility without making SURE that there were viable options for them to lead healthy, happy lives, right?
Just wondering…….
200,000,000 orphans?
Somehow that puts it into perspective.
There’s such a strong need for families for children in the US and in other countries, so why isn’t this process made easier as I try to decide between foster to adopt and international adoption, both equalling different shades of complication, foster to adopt being more complicated.
These children! How in the world can we help them?
Ah, but there is the supreme irony of the situation. There are two real options for addressing the problems of international orphans. You can change the culture of the individual children, or you can change *the culture*.
The problems in China will continue to exist as long as there are such extreme limitations put on family size. The problems in South Korea will continue to exist as long as unmarried, pregnant women and their children are treated as societal outcasts for the duration of their lives. The problems will continue to exist in the myriad of nations that just don’t believe in adopting outside of their families until we convince them that our way is better. That we are more enlightened. That our system is superior. That is honestly what it comes down to. For the problems to be addressed without intervention by outside countries, the countries where the problems exist have to change. And that would be “cultural genocide” on a much grander scale.
As is so often the case in discussions of adoption reform, all of the grand, “enlightened” suggestions just come down to unrealistic pie in the sky.
Hip Hip Hooray!
Less adoptions is something to cheer about! It translates to less families and torn apart, less families that failed to received the support they need to remain together, less coercion, less exploitation, less profits for baby traders!
And 2007 was also a great year for adoption because YOU were stopped from posting your trash on A.com!
But you won’t print this.
4ever,
Why wouldn’t I print this? I’m more than happy to allow idiots like yourself to show themselves for what they are. You all do such a great job of proving my points for me!
As you cheer for more dead children … and the rest of us wonder how much support you provide to families … your true colors are horribly apparent.
Thanks, 4ever (aka Brandy)!
Sandra,
You said it so well. I can only hope that one day the policy makers of UNICEF will be haunted by the terrible decisions they’ve forced on so many children.
And to 4ever, may I suggest that in your arrogant ignorance, you stop and think for one moment that maybe, just maybe, you don’t know what is best for everyone else everywhere else.
Not one to pray, I’m praying for the lost children of the world.
Lisa
A reduction is adoptions is a positive change. It means families are better able to take care of their members.
In all first world countries except the US, the number of adoptions is minimal. Women are not forced by poverty, disease or culture to do the most unnatural thing — abandon their children.
All those who truly care about children should work to make adoption a thing of the past.
Jane,
Thank you for posting your opinion.
If I may, I would like to direct you to others … opinions, that is … with another POV with the thought of encouraging you to perhaps consider expanding your view.
Here is one example of my thoughts.
Many of us who “truly care about children” see adoption as an option that should be protected and can’t help but react negatively to self-proclaimed mandates of exclusivity.
By the way, if you would like to join in the cooperative discussion on the fight for adoptee rights, please do so. We are limiting that discussion to a narrow focus in hopes of uniting the adoption world to the point that real changes will be possible.
Less adoptions do not mean less orphans?!! The number of orphans is spiraling out of control. Are you saying it’s better for these children to grow up living in the city dump and on the streets then to have a loving family? What is wrong with you? Maybe you should jump on a plane and visit a third world country, look those children in the eye and tell them they are better off without a family or even a home. I have seen those children face to face and my heart still breaks to know that not many of them will ever have what you and I grew up with – Read your bible and see what it says that you and I should be doing for orphans! For the folks at UNICEF – I hope you sleep well at night!
Michelle,
To whom is your comment directed?
It strikes me that many of these anti-international adoption people are spoiled First Worlders who don’t have a clue about what kind of lives orphans in the Third World face. Maybe if they went to some of these countries and really did something for these children rather than sanctimoniously spout off their dogma I’d take them more seriously.
Dear Jane Edwards and others who are against adopting from other countries. My friend just spent a year in Africa in an orphanage. Most of the orphans relatives are dead from AIDS and war.
You probably don’t need to worry about these kids getting adopted. There is little hope of that. Most of them are dying of starvation and disease before someone from the white nations can make the toiling effort it takes to get there and adopt.
As for increased support getting to the communities, there are a few Christian Organizations committed to helping. Most of the aid is diverted to the corrupt government officials. There is no culture left to preserve, it is war torn, genocide burnt and ravaged by AIDS. I guess I do not understand your point?