Reforming international adoption

For several years now, we are confronted with reports about unethical practices in adoption procedures in Ethiopia. There is evidence that structures have developed over time in which children are placed for adoption by criminal methods using corruption, lies and the falsification of documents. The primary reason for these adoptions are not humanitarian but financial. There is a growing demand for small children, and even older children are abandoned by parents for adoption. Parents hope that their children have opportunities abroad which they cannot provide at home. To simplify placement procedures, papers are forged and false statements are made. Children are robbed of their right to know their origin and first family. The basis of trust on which a new adoptive family can develop is undermined by these practices. 

As adoptive parents, we know that Ethiopia is currently not in a position to care for all its abandoned children. International adoption are measures of individual care, which can not solve the problem of poverty and underdevelopment - nor should it aim to do so. However, this generally useful practice of individual assistance is increasingly discredited through unethical practices.

We call on the authorities to take the following measures to combat criminal practices (trafficking, fraud, corruption, forgery of administrative documents) in international adoption:

1. Adoption placements must only be made on the basis of complete documentation of the biological family of the child and the circumstances of abandonement. Testimonies about the situation of abandonement must be obtained and documented. Adoption agencies are responsible for the veracity of the documentation. The relevant courts, immigration and youth authorities are requested to ask for this information. 
2. Adoption agencies are requested to establish and maintain contact between adoptive parents and the family of origin if at all possible. Direct contact prevents lies about the family situation and helps the child in its further development.
3. All payments in the context of an international adoption must be documented and justified. Payments to families and intermediaries for the supply of children must be prohibited by cost transparency. All fees must reflect real efforts and costs.  Otherwise, they are a covert form of child trafficking.

Quotas for cutting the number of placements

We have now received (unconfirmed) information that the cuts of placements as decided by the Ethiopian Government is implemented by a quota which is operated for each adoption agency. Apparently the government aims to limit the number of placements to 2 adoptions per month for each agency. German agencies are therefore hardly affected since the total number of adoptions per agency was not much higher. The much larger U.S. American agencies are likely to be hit more severely.

Moreover, the reasons for the measure are not only the manipulation of paperwork and document in preparation of the placement. Also the attitude and behaviour of adoptive parents in Ethiopia, which were perceived as sometimes condescending or even degrading seems to have triggered the decision.

Defining and Implementing Ethics in IA

The issue of ethics in IA is not new and therefore there are a number of documents which the discussion can draw upon. First and foremost these are the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989, as well as the Hague Convention of 1993, to which we have already referred.

In addition, there are other documents that define ethical principles which must guide IA.  A comprehensive catalog of principle was published by the Swiss organization Service Social International (SSI) which was developed in collaboration with experts throughout the world. Similarly, the European umbrella organisation of adoption agencies euradopt has adopted a set of ethical principles which are similar to those of SSI.

The principles are likely to be universally shared - unless by those who reject IA in principle. However it quickly becomes clear that well-meaning principles are often out of touch with the real world. This concerns particularly the documentation of the origin of the child, social and medical reports, the attempts to place children in local communities, the prevention of abandonement and many more.

How can we strengthen the practice if agencies are willing to commit to ethical principles? For instance, public agencies such as social services, embassies and national courts could make stronger demands regarding the quality of the paperwork. They could demand more research on the family of origin, the identity of the parents and extended family, their consent and knowledge of the adoption. They could be more active as supervisory authorities if incorrect information in the course of adoption is known and initiate follow up procedures including compensation for mistreated families and children. They could hold the agencies to account on the basis of the principles they themselves defined and agreed to.

Also, agencies could be far more active. The ethical standards of Euradopt are reactive in nature; the organisation reacts only if scandals arise and the consequences are minimal. Agencies could set up due diligences processes including certification of ethical procedures, documentation on how they comply with the ethical principles in their work. They could document their post-adoption services and support structures.  They could publish annual reports, which document the measures on the implementation of ethical principles.

Adoptive parents in turn could demand ethical procedures and practices in the adoption process. They could choose their agencies not only on the basis of the duration of the proceedings (or the costs) but also with regard to the ethical standards of the agency. They could spread the word about more and less ethical agencies and inform other parents.

All three sides could tackle the issue head on and cooperate. They could share their experiences, awareness, name and shame those, who do not live up to ethical standards, report malpractice and thus spread the word in favour of ethical IA. They could sign voluntary pledges and proof of practices.  There are many ways. 

First published in German, May 22nd 2011. 

How do children end up in institutional care?

A comment on our German blog asked this question. This is an important issue, because institutional care is the key decision for a potential adoption. Only an abandoned and parentless child needs new parents. A placement in an orphanage for a period of time is usually seen as evidence that the child was abandoned. There are two arguments that are run by adoption critics on this issue.

The first argument states that adoption in itself leads to the abandonment of children. Because there is the possibility of adoption, parents or relatives are prepared to give up their children in hope of a better life. Fewer children would be abandoned without the option of adoption. Unfortunately, there is no evidence for this claim (apart from a highly controversial study), although the evidence would be not so hard to provide. Many countries do not allow foreign adoptions at all. Are there fewer children in care compared to countries with international adoption? Did the number of abandoned children increase in Ethiopia, since the increase of adoptions? Is this due to adoptions? Does the demand create the supply? We do not know it and are grateful for any reliable evidence. However, we should not forget that UNICEF estimates the number of (semi) orphans in Ethiopia at just under 5 million and the number of adoptions was so far no higher than 5000 in the year. This is less than a thousandth. This is not to gloss over the problems of corruption but merely to point out that there is most likely a real need which is not addressed by removing adoptions altogether.

The second argument is about a different approach towards institutional care in poorer countries. Parents bring their children to orphanages, because they can temporarily not care  for them. Or in order to provide them a better education. This is confirmed in this report on child trafficking in Nepal. It is obvious that these are not adoptable children. Where children have caring parents, they are not orphans or abandoned. As the report makes clear, some orphanages keep children away from their parents, because they receive funding in the case of adoption. This is a criminal offence.

To eliminate corruption and trafficking of children, the process of placing children in institutional care must be carefully documented and documentation must be checked. Direct financial assistance for adoption must be regulated, limited and in the case of institutional care stopped. There must be no financial incentive for abandoning a child, neither for orphanages nor for parents or relatives.

Adoptions may be an individual solution for abandoned children but must never be a reason to abandon children.

First published in German on May 11^th, 2011.

What are ethical international adoptions?

As a comment to the post "what is behind the Mowa decision?" we were asked: how do you define ethical international adoptions? This is a difficult question, but there are some explanatory notes on our website and a short answer is the following: An ethical international adoption is an individual measure for children without parents in the interest of the child, in order to avoid institutional care. The ethical side includes the following:

• a true and comprehensive documentation of the origin, the family development and physical and mental health of the child analog to the procedures of domestic adoptions;
• the exclusion of financial, political or other private interest in the adoption;
• the comprehensive information of the family of origin of the adoption process and the consequences of an adoption including respect for the rights of the parents;
• when it affects older children it includes also participation of the child in the adoption process;
• the comprehensive preparation and care for the adopting family regarding all aspects relating to the child.

If these criteria are met, an adoption is a useful measure for the benefit of the child even across borders.

First pubished in German on May 10th, 2011.

What is behind the MOWA decision?

Early March 2011 the Ethiopian Government decided to reduce the number of adoption so far 50 to 5 per day allegedly in order to improve the procedure and to examine the underlying documentation of abandoned children. What were the reasons leading to the decision? In short: we don't know the answer. The blogosphere of adoption activists has found no convincing explanation for this move. However, there are a number of theories circulating:

• There is one assumption that the Ethiopian Government has excavated the UN Convention on the rights of the child from their drawers and now would like to take it seriously. This seems to be more than naive in light of reports of ongoing human rights violations in Ethiopia.
• Another explanation is based on an increasing pressure of international organizations. UNICEF is critical of the adoption procedures in Ethiopia. We do not know of any position openly threatening with the withdrawal of aid in the context of adoption procedures.
• The US Government could have prompted the decision. On the one hand, it is under massive pressure from the adoption lobby, on the other hand, both the embassy and the USCIS immigration have major problems with the processing visa of obviously incorrect adoption decisions.
• Little is known about conflicts and corruption within the Government. However, there were changes in personnel in the Ministry. 
• There are conflicts between the federal government and Southern Ethiopian regional administrations and rebel organisations fighting the government. It is alleged that rebels use international adoptions for securing new sources of funding. There are unconfirmed rumors that the government aims to cut the financial flows to rebel groups by reducing the number of adoptions from southern Ethiopia.

Depending on the motivation different conclusions can be drawn about the seriousness of the efforts of the government. It is clear that a reduction in the number of cases alone does not reform the process. Rather, there is a risk that lower numbers of placements and a reduced commitment of agencies can lead to worsening conditions in orphanages, which is then answered by a new wave of unregulated adoption. Whether the decision of MOWA is a first step in the right direction, or rather a bargaining chip, remains open.

First published in German on May 8th, 2011.