Some readers were upset by my comments in the last two Newsletters on UK media allegations of unsavoury intercountry adoption practices and the implications for potential adopters.
I apologise wholeheartedly to all those who were upset by what I wrote. Being an intercountry adoptive parent can be hard enough without any extra grief, and we all need to provide mutual support to one another. AFAA members have adopted from 37 countries, and we should be grateful that so many people have been successful and have no doubts about the processes in which they were involved. We would all regret that not everyone takes their responsibilities so seriously.
The point has been made to me that cases of unethical behaviour are reported from numerous countries, and focussing on one, even without naming it, is unfair. Certainly there are too many reports from too many countries, and these threaten to tarnish the reputation of all. This concerns me, and my aim was to make the general point that we as prospective adopters have the responsibility to deal only with people or organisations acting with complete probity. The sad case of the internet twins suggests that when something unsavoury is encountered, it is extremely hard to maintain high moral standards if the price is to walk away from fulfilling a dream.
The key message is that malpractice does occur and that potential adopters should do enough investigation to satisfy themselves that procedures are acceptable whatever country they are contemplating adopting from. It seems quite reasonable to remind people of this.
Some people argued that it was wrong of me to mention anonymous misdeeds in the interests of preaching caution. But it is not necessarily easy to disregard a lengthy research report sent out by a UN agency. Such allegations from any country are dreadful and, as my article tried to make clear, they are likely to be very damaging to the interests of all our children. It has been pointed out that I was wrong to suggest that potential adopters should avoid countries where malpractice has occurred, because not all adoptions from such countries are necessarily dubious. I certainly accept this, and am sorry not to have made the point more clearly: if a potential adoption doesn’t seem above board, then move on but perhaps to a different contact, not necessarily another country. The internet twins case clearly doesn’t detract from the legitimacy of other adoptions from the USA.
In conclusion, I hope we can all move forward to a better understanding of the issues involved and how we should respond to them.
A Word of Explanation... * Playing the Ethic Card
What would guidance for adopters on best practice for intercountry adoption look like? Some people might feel that adequate regulation, such as enforcement of the Hague Convention or the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, would leave no scope for further guidance or for individual conscience. But of course we are faced with the need to define our own standards all the time, from deciding what we or our children will watch on television to choosing what to buy in the supermarket. Intercountry adoption is no different, and we should ask whether full compliance with all relevant law offers a sufficient safeguard. Beyond that, the unfortunate experience of the internet twins suggests that there are occasions when people can be led into breaking the law.
Many issues spring to mind, and we can all provide our own answers. The chances are they will differ considerably, according to the circumstances – and the degree of emotional involvement.
A good starting point is to ask, How are the best interests of the child to be defined, and by whom? This is especially important when different parties’ views will vary. UNICEF, for example, holds that poverty alone is not a sufficient justification for intercountry adoption. But can social disadvantage and poverty be disentangled? On the one hand, bureaucratic interpretations of ‘best interests’ may be unrealistic or impracticable, but on the other, applying an individual interpretation may lead in the direction of flouting the law.
A number of issues arise. Clearly it is not acceptable to break an adoption-related law in a sending country. For example, cash payments to birth mothers are banned for obvious reasons. Are there then any options for an adopting couple who nevertheless feel a humanitarian duty to help a young woman financially, to gain a degree of independence that will provide her with a route to a sustainable future?
Bribery is not acceptable, and this is not unique to adoption. Nevertheless, there may be situations where officials seem to need persuading to do their duties properly, even aside from moving a particular case to the top of the pile. Can we reconcile this with the best interests of the child?
What about the birth mother’s release? What further steps could or should one take, beyond accepting the paperwork one is given, to confirm that this is a fully voluntary action? What do you do if enquiries reveal nothing? Does ‘voluntary’ include being ordered by her parents/husband to give up a baby? Is it different if they know, or hope, the intermediary will reward them financially? Is it different if orphanages or authorities which do well out of foreign adopters persuade birth mothers to part with babies for their mutual benefit, as recently reported of one candidate country for accession to the European Union ("…there is clear evidence that the state is encouraging child abandonment")?
Posing questions such as these is the easy part. They suggest that while there may be scope for identifying some principles which are broadly acceptable in theory, putting these into practice at the individual level may be different. Determining a robust code of conduct will require rather more thought, and I believe that AFAA should take a lead in developing such an approach and that the Committee should discuss how best to do this. No doubt they would welcome any views from members on this subject - however contentious - so please let us hear from you.
A Word of Explanation... * Playing the Ethic Card
Personal views by Andrew Gibbons.
Andrew Gibbons
chairman.afaa@pobox.comPlease note that views expressed in these articels are not necessarly those of the Editor or the Webmaster or of the AFAA Committee.
Patron: His Honor Michael Cook
Registered Charity Number 1003274
Last modified: 15 February, 2004