Hitting, Smacking, Yelling - Silence

After the meeting of the US State Department with stakeholders on adoptions from Ethiopia on January 24th, there was a broad discussion about the insufficient documentation of the origin of adopted children as well as the practices of agencies, the Ethiopian authorities and courts.

To one of the subjects dealt with at the Conference there were hardly any reactions even though it was in the final ' 4 take-home messages for adoptive parents'. The second of these messages is according to the protocol of the Organization 'ethica':

Adoptive parents should seek out pre-adoptive education on child development and attachment. They should check their attitudes when in-country, but more than that, realize that practices such as hitting, smacking, or yelling at children are extremely harmful for both the children themselves and the future of the program.

That something seemingly obvious is stressed in such a way (and must be?), is yet notable. And perhaps also significant. The preparation and education of future adoptive parents on behaviour abroad and the treatment of children in public.

And in private? The bad impression that adoptive parents leave in the host country if they shout at or smack their children, threatens the adoption programme as a whole. But what will happen to them at home? You can guess how these children might fare in the future and which (new) injuries are inflicted to them.

On this point: Silence.

First published in German on April 11th, 2011

How helpful is The Hague Convention?

When dealing with ethical issues in international adoptions one cannot ignore the Hague Convention of 1993. The Hague Convention established an intergovernmental consensus that parentless children should grow up in a family and allows for the case that no family in the country can be found international adoption as a reasonable measure for providing care for children. In order to prevent abuse and corruption, rules of procedure for the accreditation of agencies and a government supervision are arranged. Does the Hague Convention help to prevent unethical practices? 

The experience of the last 18 years is not overwhelmingly positive. While the number of international adoptions declines, this is not true for the of corruption and abuse. Countries close their adoption programs rather than that they introduce sustainable ethical procedures. On the other hand, the large sending and receiving countries, such as China, Russia, Ethiopia and the United States, have either not signed the Hague Convention or only recently. Is a stricter application of the Hague Convention the solution?

In a comprehensive legal and empirical analysis the lawyer and adoptive father David Smolin has examined the potential of the Hague Convention. He comes to the conclusion that ratification alone hardly helps to change practices. Rather the following conditions must be met in addition in order to give life to the Convention:

1. Financial incentives through taxes and donations must be regulated, limited and made transparent.
2. Receiving countries have to accept responsibility for the ethical standards in the sending countries.
3. Known cases of child trafficking in foreign adoption must be publicly examined and taken as an opportunity to improve the process.
4. Receiving countries which have ratified the Hague Convention (in particular the United States) must apply the same standards to countries that have not in order to stop unethical agencies from moving from one country with weak regulation to the next (such as from Guatemala to Ethiopia).

According to Smolin, the future of foreign adoption is threatened not by ideological debates (such as the accusation of neo-colonialism). Rather, the failure of those responsible to establish sustainable and ethically correct procedures despite the large financial resources that are spent lead to an increasingly sceptical attitude of sender countries and regularly to the closure of adoption programmes, rather than for their better regulation. In other words: The adoption advocates who turn a blind eye to ethical questions, undermine the process in the long run, because scandals lead to a reduction of foreign adoption. Perhaps this is a sign for hope.

First published in German on April 27th, 2011.

Striking anomalies

On April 6th 2011 a conference of the American Immigration authority USCIS with agencies and parents took place. The USCIS officials had carried out a study of the situation in Ethiopia in January 2011. American adoptive parents at the Embassy must prove that the child is an orphan and adoptable in line with American legislation in order to obtain a visa for an adopted child. Increasing evidence of irregularities and the ever increasing number of adoptions make it difficult for the embassy to issue visa.

A presentation by the USCIS with the results of the study was presented at the Conference. On page 14 of the presentation, the following anomalies in recruitment agencies / orphanages are presented as a reason for further investigations of the USCIS and are seen as potential evidence for unethical practices by the Agency:

• an unusual age distribution of placed children (meaning a high proportion of babies);
• an unusual high number of abandoned children;
• an unusually high number of children abandoned by other relatives than parents;
• exclusive relationships between orphanages and agencies.

In the subsequent discussion, it became clear that the burden of proof for the proper documentation of the status of children lies with the adoptive parents, even if they see themselves as dependent on the agencies. (This is  in principle no different in German adoptions). To the question of how adoptive parents can know which agencies behave correctly,  a representative of the USCIS replied: "You are spending $30,000 on to adoption, you want to do a lot of due diligence on the organization that you are hiring to work for you. Many people research a car more closely than they research on agency."

First published in German on April 17th, 2011. 

Why are there unethical adoptions in Ethiopia?

According to UNICEF there are 5 million orphaned children in Ethiopia. Taking into account that this number includes half-orphans, who could live with a parent and relatives, there is still a high number of children that in need of a home.  Why is there still a high number of complaints and reports of unethical practices in Ethiopian adoption procedures? Why are there reports of fake social reports, false statements about age and origin, uninformed parents who are tricked into giving up  their children? According to a survey of the American parent organization PEAR, almost 30% of surveyed parents have experienced unethical practices which were not excusable.

One explanation for this is the desire for small children. Many adoptive parents are looking for a young child  (even though the trauma of an abandoned infant of a separation of parents and family is no less serious than of older children). Young children are rarely orphaned and initially rather cared for within the family. To enable their placements quickly and unbureaucratically, the appropriate procedures are not complied with.

Also, a lack of resources is likely to play a role. Research on the families of the children and the circumstances of their abandonement is expensive. Travelling to Southern Ethiopian South is tiring and the communication is difficult. There is also a competition between agencies. As American agencies have rushed into the country, they must reach a certain number of placements to operate their offices on the ground.

However, the most important and most difficult reason is a lack of legal and ehtical awareness among those involved. Time and again we hear the objection that you may not apply Western standards in Ethiopia. That it is more important to bring a child into a family than to ask too many questions. That an illiterate Ethiopian can not understand the legal consequences of a German adoption. That for the children, their age in the Passport is not important as long as they can only leave the country. These arguments are wrong. They rob children their right to the knowledge of their origin and identity. Those who deal with international adoptions, have to ensure the same standards in the truthfulness of documentation of placements as in domestic adoption. 


First published in German on March 28, 2011.