International adoption is widespread and increasing in popularity. In most cases, sending countries tend to be poorer, developing nonWhite nations and receiving countries tend to be wealthier, developed White nations. In other words, children of color from poor countries almost always are adopted into White families from wealthy countries. Even adoptions from Russia and Eastern Europe often include transethnic and transracial adoptive families, as many children from Russia and Eastern Europe may be of Asian descent. I have never heard of instances in which White children were being adopted by families in Asia, Latin America, or Africa. Given the racial and geopolitical set of realities, this latter rarity is quite understandable.
However, transracial/transnational adoption has been before and is still being turned upside down. Take for instance, the fact that the good old USA is a sending country! Yes, even though we are the largest receiving country for international adoption, we also are a sending country. Specifically, family from Canada and Europe are adopting anywhere from 500-800 African American and mixed race children from the USA. Read these stories from CBS, NPR, and the Christian Science Monitor on this phenomenon.
From the CSM article..... the US is now the fourth largest "supplier" of babies for adoption to Canada. Adoption by Shepherd Care, an agency in Hollywood, Fla., places 90 percent of its African-American babies in Canada....The exact numbers are not available, but interviews with adoption agencies and families in Canada, Germany, France, and the Netherlands indicate that the US also sends babies to those four countries as well as Belgium and England. Most of the children are black newborns. Most of the adopting parents are Caucasian.
This phenomenon highlights the serious problems with race in America. It is a tricky issue for sure, but one that we really need to examine critically especially as international adoption becomes more and more popular in this country. For example, why do White parents feel more comfortable adopting a child internationally from Africa but not a Black child from Georgia? Some argue it is because a-parents do not want birthparents to reclaim the child. Others argue it is because of the long and controversial history of Black-White adoptions in this country. Still others argue that adoption from Africa seems more "humanitarian" or "exotic." The reasons are not clearly known but worthy of investigation.
Another interesting transracial/transnational adoption issue is what happens when a child is adopted internationally into a racially similar country or more commonly family. Increasingly, we are hearing about Asian American couples adopting children from China, Korea, and other parts of Asia. Do these children fare better, same, or worse than children adopted into White families? Will life be easier for these kids because they are less likely to have ethnic and racial identity struggles given that there is phenotypic similarity within the family? Will a-parents and children feel more "safe" because they can, in essence, "pass" as a bio-familiy in a society that still privileges biological, nuclear families? I believe it is too early to tell because the children are still young.
I could not find much info on this last issue of inracial but transnational adoption in the USA, but I did discover a fascinating story of Japanese orphans who were adopted into Chinese families in China after the Japanese were defeated in World War II and de-occupied China (along with Korea). Click here, here, here for links to these stories. Also, click here and here for a study on the "Japanese" personality of these Japanese orphans.
Basically, according to some accounts, over 4,000 Japanese children were orphaned following Japan's defeat in WWII. Some of the orphans knew that they were Japanese by ethnicity/nationality, but others thought they were Chinese by ethnicity and, in some cases, the biological children of their Chinese a-parents. Some children were treated as part of the family, while others were treated more poorly by their adoptive (or foster) parents in China. Others were teased by their classmates who knew they were Japanese.
According to one article, All Japanese orphans who could be identified were organized to look for their original families and relatives in Japan and were allowed to return to their homeland...Between 1981 and 2000, according to Guan Yaxin, Zhang Zhikun's colleague at the Liaoning Academy of Social Sciences, 2,121 Japanese orphans went back to Japan to look for their parents and relatives. A total of 666 of them finally found their original families. Those who failed to find their families were also allowed to settle in Japan...[Moreover] According to the Japanese Ministry of Labor, 2,476 orphans 90 percent of the total had returned to Japan by August 2004.
Of those who returned to Japan, some 40 years later, not surprisingly, most have struggled to adapt to their old/new homeland. Imagine repatriating after so long. It reminds me of the increasing number of Korean adoptees who have chosen to live in South Korea as adults, although circumstances are obviously not the same. Korean adoptees have human capital (e.g., English language skills, college education) and economic capital (savings, jobs) that make the transition easier in some instances.
Here is another interesting, albeit tangentially related, story that I have not heard much about in Asian American Studies despite its relevance to Asian Americanist history -- the placement of Japanese orphan children and infants into internment camps at a place called Children's Village during World War II. This article by a LATimes reporter reveals another dark side to WWII. Clearly, these children were a threat to national security.
Well, I am not sure where I am going with this entry today, but it is striking to examine the ways in which transracial and transnational adoption is changing and the ways in which it has transpired over history. It is not a uniform experience and it is not a one-way experience either. We have something to learn by understanding the complexities of international adoption from all geo-political sides.
Posted by richlee at April 19, 2006 10:00 AMHi Rich,
You have posed a lot of interesting questions. I think IA is so popular with US white people because parents find that they qualify for the programs and after completing the paperwork and wait, a child is almost always referred to the family.
I have always been uncomfortable with the $$$$ attached to adoption. I also think adoption agencies and social workers have played a big role in the domestic adoption industry in the US, and I also believe that many people are so unaware of their own personal bias, especially white people. I don't know if the agencies or social workers are aware of the biased decisions that they make on a daily basis. I don't think domestic adoption is as simple as some people make it sound.
I do think that when one looks at the popularity of International Adoption is does appear to be imperialistic on a large scale. But I don't think adoptive parents like myself considered the *big* picture at the time. But it does seem to add up that way.
I have been thinking about some of these same issues and really haven't come to any conclusion and may never.
My opinion about same race adoptions, especially IA, is that many of the other adoption issues might not be addressed because the focus today is so much about the transracial part. I think the same issues of secrecy, shame, human rights are very much present in all adoptions.
Thanks Rich for allowing me to express my current thoughts. I really enjoy reading your blog and also liked your snippet about diaspora on Point Made.
Posted by: kathy at April 19, 2006 02:19 PMgreat post! hope you/others can track/study/talk with the adoptees who have been raised in same-race/culture families.
Posted by: mudeng at April 19, 2006 03:00 PMI wasn't aware of the Japanese children in the orphanage. New fodder for me to put through the grist mill. Thanks for digging this information up.
As another comment stated, domestic adoption isn't as easy as people think. I can attest to that being true. While we all like to point fingers across the room, each "side" has to deal with a concept and a practice that is inherently imbued with ethical questions and complexities.
thanks for a thought provoking post.
Posted by: Jae Ran at April 19, 2006 03:41 PMWhy do a-parents choose international adoption over domestic?
Actually, the majority of adoptions in this country are domestic.
Why adopt from Africa rather than the US?
Because of the way the system works in the US - a birthmother picks a family and then changes her mind right after the child is born - this happens often, I think I read for every 1 success there are 6 that are cancelled. For people who have gone through the heartbreak of infertility, those odds are just horrific.
Adopting from DFYS is very difficult, you cannot adopt a child under 8 very easily unless you foster which means that most of the children placed with you - 80% will not be adoptable by you, they will be returned to their parents or a family member. Even if you do succeed in adopting this way, an appellate court may overturn the decision to terminate parental rights in which case a child may be taken from the only parents they've known for years.
Why is the US now a sending country - keep in mind adoption is very difficult in some European countries, they may be more willing to face the risks, or the procedure they go through may be different than what US a-parents have to go through, I'm not really sure about that. It's sort of a well kept secret that we adopt away our citizens - isn't it?
Also in regards to Black/White adoptions - or White/Black - a lot of black people are hostile to it and even to the children raised in that situation - "they're white on the inside", or "not black enough", and I suppose there's too much hostility for it to occur much the other way around much.
Posted by: karma at April 19, 2006 06:35 PMThanks everyone for the comments and experiences. What I love about blogging is the opportunity to engage in dialogue with others who share different (and similar) views and opinions (and who are willing to engage in constructive and critical inquiry about these issues). I know that I learn a lot from people's comments and other blogs.
I also want to state that I am not against international adoption. By and large, I believe that it is a necessary last resort intervention and option for developing countries given the global and local challenges that put many children at risk and displaced in foster care or orphanages. This is the view of the United Nations, as well, and articulated in the Hague Convention on intercountry adoptions.
I raise questions on my blog because I believe we, as a society, need to critically examine our assumptions and reasons.
That said, I can't dispute the difficulties associated with domestic adoption (same-race, transracial, foster care, etc). As Jae-Ran and Karma noted, there is no doubt that there is a lot of bureaucracy, legality, and cost, as well possible heartache and disappointment. It is an unfortunate but perhaps necessary reality.
Comparing the situation in the USA to South Korea, for example, I am glad that we have these checks and balances in place, as well as a social welfare infrastructure to give families a chance to stick together. Imagining if one was on the other side (i.e., as a birthparent), which country's infrastructure is preferred?
Unfortunately, what is lost in this type of narrative is the bureaucracy, legality, cost, heartache and disappointment that birthparents also face, whether abroad or domestic. It is a difficult situation for everyone.
As Kathy noted, adoption agencies and social workers do play a large role in domestic adoption. However, they play as large a role in international adoption as well. The main difference is that there currently is no government agency in the US to oversee international adoption. Thus, it probably is easier to adopt internationally.
Karma, I can understand the desire for adoptive parents to want to know with security that their adopted child is a part of their family. This makes sense to me and it would be heartbreaking to raise a child for a few years (as a foster parent) but then be denied adoption (or have the birthparent reclaim the child).
Familial entitlement is an underlying belief and privilege in many adoptions. That is, the needs of parents to start/expand a family takes precendence over the needs of a child. It is based on the idea that people are entitled to a nuclear family. Again, according to the Hague, every effort should be made to keep a child with his/her bithfamily and, if not, within his/her community and country.
When I visited Hawaii, I learned about the concept of hanai in which adoption is viewed as informal and open. Children, whether as infants or older, are given to another family to raise and care as their own. However, the birthfamily still has connections with the child and the child understands the situation. To me, in this situation, it is less about familial entitlement and more about community empowerment.
I wonder if someday we will move away from priviliged notion of a nuclear family and back to the ways of the hanai -- which is a concept and tradition that can be found in the histories of nearly every culture, particularly pre-industrial revolution.
On a related note, a sad irony to a-parents choosing to adopt internationally to avoid birthparents reclaiming a child is that many Korean girls elect international adoption for their children because they want to be able to reconnect with them when they are older!
As for the comments regarding the African American community's attitudes toward Black children adopted into White homes, this is a problematic argument to me. First, I don't think there is as much hostility toward it today, but the fear of such hostility and our discomfort with addressing such racial dynamics remains. Second, if this antagonism does exist, it should apply to a child adopted from Africa as well, given that people make such judgments according to phenotype (and not knowing if a kid is adopted domestically or internationally). Third, it suggests that Asian and Latino children are not subjected to such stigma and therefore its more acceptable. I think racial dialogue needs to extend beyond Black-White because it silences other racial realities.
Well, these are just my initial thoughts to some very thoughtful and thought provoking comments.
p.s., I do know that most adoptions are domestic (not international); the blog entry was just focuses on the unique transracial/transnational permutations to international adoption.
Posted by: rich at April 19, 2006 07:59 PMHi Rich,
Maybe the difference between domestic and international adoption
in the US is profit. Domestic adoption through social services has
low cost involved and International is very expensive. So, I wonder
if domestic adoption is handled differently because of the low profit.
Perhaps the huge foster care system is more profitable for the
domestic adoption industry. I don't know but I wouldn't be surprised
if there was a connection.
Also, the *antagonism* in regard to transracial adoption in the US is
mostly due to the lack of concern for the healthy racial identity needs
of the children. This has been going on for, what, fifty years, and still
hasn't really been addressed. Same could be said for International
Adoption. How long does it take?
I like your idea about Hawaiian open adoption. I think a lot of the
anguish of adoption would be alleviated in that situation.
Very, very interesting post, Rich. Thanks so much for sharing your knowledge, perspective and expertise.
What I personally find so difficult about discussions of TA, and race, for that matter, is that they always seem to embrace this either/or, good/bad binary. That's why I appreciate your approach to these issues in this post, which is one of questioning, critique and exchange. We don't have to decide if TA is good or bad, we just need to look at its current practices and effects, on a case by case basis. THEN we can begin to evaluate.
Posted by: Shanakin at April 22, 2006 12:25 PMGreat conversation! Nothing to add except to say that the idea of a "need to critically examine our assumptions and reasons" is an incredibly important point. Thanks, everyone, for participating in this process.
Posted by: Yvette at April 24, 2006 11:06 AMim an orphan 27yrs , im a university now out of studies due to finances, i also have no home. im indeed suffering .can i be helped
Posted by: Titus Maina at October 3, 2006 12:59 AMJust a FYI: Domestic adoption in some cases can be more expensive and the wait time to adoption can be longer than international adoption. Keep in mind, also, that some people adopting internationally are trying to avoid transcultural/transracial adoption because they are adopting from the countries where they emigrated from... If they adopted domestically, meaning in the USA, they would have to adopt a child of a different culture, which may make it difficult for family back in the old country to relate to and establish relationships with as grandparents, uncles, aunts, and so on.
Posted by: Tawnya at June 30, 2007 06:04 PMAnother comment: Look in the Occupational Outlook Handbook (online edition) with the US Dept of Labor for the salaries that social workers make... I would doubt that any social worker in the USA is making a lot of money off of adoptions whether domestic or internation. Just compare a MSW (Masters in Social Work) social worker's average salary with that of a Bachelor's degree with no experience in many other professions and you will note that social workers are not making much money at all... So please don't blame social workers for the cost of adoption. In fact, I would argue that they are underpaid in the whole process!
Posted by: Tawnya at June 30, 2007 06:07 PMThe preparation of the “adoption dossier� (legal documents) for international adoptions can be a complicated and lengthy process. I know this first hand.
Couples have to Apostille or obtain Consular legalization of birth certificates marriage certificates, home studies, letters of recommendation etc.
You will require Apostille or Consular legalization depending of the country where they are adopting form, if the country is a member of the Hague convention they will need Apostille, if the country is not a member of the Hague convention it will need consular legalization.
I hope this helps you better prepare.
Luis Massieu