International Adoption - is this common?

[1bassoon]

So, I have friends adopting internationally. I really don't want to say what country.

 

Turns out, now that they're over there, the biological father of one of the children wants custody. I guess the parents are still alive, but rights were terminated b/c of neglect.

 

That surprises me. I never thought a country would allow the children adopted out of country when their parents are still living, and where there are other living relatives who maybe don't have custody, but want a relationship with the children.

 

It's all - messy. Not what I thought "caring for orphans" was supposed to be.

 

And fwiw - the country they're in is non-Hague compliant. I guess I see why :001_unsure:

[Jean in Newcastle]

Yes, many times these kids are not orphans in the true sense of the word.

[Dayle in Guatemala]

Hmmmm...I've heard this before. And, fwiw, many "orphans" from Guatemala still have living parents, they've just signed over their rights. But, right now, Guatemala is closed to adoptions. Sad, really, there are a TON of orphanages that are so full they have to turn out the younger to middle aged teens to make room for the babies, which is causing other issues, you can imagine. It's a mess really.

[stripe]

Yes, I've heard of this. I think it's rather not uncommon. And pretty sad.

[Laurie4b]

One of the kids Madonna adopted had a living father and grandmother, but they couldn't afford to care for him so he was in an orphanage. With her money put to good use in microcredit or something, how many kids could have been reunited with families who would have wanted them if they could have fed them, etc. I wish people would help the parents care for them instead of taking them out of their country. (I mean people who know ahead of time like Madonna did. I am sorry for your friends who have a very sad decision to make.)

[stripe]

I recently saw on tv a journalist who went to a part of Pakistan that had been flooded, and the mother of a young baby tried to get the journalist to take said newborn. Clearly she thought it was the best option. Reminds me of Beloved and Sophie's Choice.

[Amira]

Agreeing with the others. Most children in orphanages in many parts of the world aren't technically orphans. It can make for some very unfortunate situations, especially if you work with an agency that is corrupt, or at least not as careful as it should be. There is so much paperwork to get through when you adopt, but hopefully it should help make sure that the adopted child really should have been adopted.

[sparrow]

No, it's not common, but it does happen.

 

I'm so sorry for your friends' situation :(.

[MaMa2005]

Yes, many times these kids are not orphans in the true sense of the word.

 

:iagree:

 

No, it's not common, but it does happen.

 

 

 

In some countries, this happens at the court date. We have had friends adopting from non-Hague countries and it always seems to happen when the final court date transpires.

[Sparkle]

Yes, it's unfortunate. My dh and I were seriously considering an international adoption a few years ago, and I know it would have bothered me to adopt a child who still had a biological parent living. Even though it might have meant saving that child's life or giving them a better one from a financial point of view, it would have broken my heart to take a child away from its parent. So sad, and I'm not sure there is a good solution to this. Right now, we sponsor a child in a poor country, and I believe it is helping her have a better life and freeing up some financial responsibility for her mother.

[monalisa]

Something similar happened to a friend of mine with Russia back when they were still an adoption sending country.

[Mimm]

When I was in Haiti, plenty of the babies had parents, but they were so poor they would voluntarily sign away their rights and hope that the baby would get adopted away to the US. Such a heartbreaking situation, I can't imagine having to make such a decision. Also, some of the babies were simply abandoned. One little girl, between the age of one and two (hard to tell because hungry children are often small and delayed) had been left outside the orphanage before I went to Haiti. After I came back home, the mom showed up looking for her but I think after a certain period of time, they could have declared her an orphan and put her up for adoption. She was my favorite baby there, absolutely beautiful.

[Murmer]

This is possible but it also occurs here in the us commonly with foster care but also with domestic infant adoption.

[EthiopianFood]

This is possible but it also occurs here in the us commonly with foster care but also with domestic infant adoption.

 

Excellent point. Many children in foster care here DO have biological parents who wants them, but the state deemed them incompetent to care for their children. Is having living parents who chose to place their child because they were poor worse than living parents who had problems but did want to raise their kids? It's all very sad, and ultimately, the kids are there and in need of a family. Yes, our first priority should be to help parents raise their kids. Once the children are placed though, that is a different issue that needs to be addressed.

[michelle l]

Yes, it's not at all uncommon, and something I struggle with a great deal (i am an adoptee and and also adopted a child internationally). We hear so much about helping "the widows and orphans", but it I can't wrap my head around the fact that the best help we offer is to take their chidlren. We care for the "orphan" while leaving the family in distress. Obviously, it's more complicated than that. It is something I wrestle with consistently. Adoption may be best for some children, but it's far from the overwhelming miracle many claim it to be. For now, we're using our resources to support programs that enable families to stay together -- sponsorship, etc. It IS complicated, but this is where my heart is for now.

 

I'm sorry for your friends. That must have been very unexpected and is certainly a tough situation.

 

 

http://thewarriorprincessdiaries.blogspot.com/

[jujsky]

It's very common that the parents of a child would still be alive. Some countries/regions are not very good about making sure all parental rights are terminated prior to introducing a child to a family. If this adoption doesn't work out, that's one of the things your friends should ask next time around -- whether or not all parental rights have been terminated and whether or not all known relatives have refused the child.

[stripe]

I have a family friend who adopted a child as a newborn (in the US); the mother was married, with several other children. Apparently they just did not want another. It was (as far as I know) a private adoption. I don't think this child was ever declared an "orphan," though. And that's the difference.

[liv404]

Going back to domestic adoption... most of the babies up for adoption here in the US have one or both parents still living. Nobody has an issue with this. If a teenage mother or a single mother, etc wants to give up their child for adoption, nobody throws a fit about it because the child isn't a true orphan. So why do people have such a hard time when an orphan from another country still has a living parent? I'm obviously not talking about cases when the parent did not want to give up their child, or was tricked into it, etc. I'm talking about when the parent felt it was in the best interest of the child to put him/her up for adoption. If somebody in the US does this, it's commended. If a parent does not feel that they are in a good position to care for a child, adoption is a wonderful alternative. Why then is this automatically looked at as a bad thing when it is international?

 

I am not speaking out of naivety. I KNOW there is a lot of corruption in international adoption. That's why we have hague set up, etc. It is so important to make sure that the child is truly orphaned or relinquished. I am not at all condoning corruption in adoption. I am also fully aware that the best case scenario would be if all parents were ready and able to care for their children - emotionally, physically, financially, etc. But it simply isn't the case.

 

Just throwing it out there.

 

PS: UNICEF's definition of an orphan is a child who has lost one or both parents.

[sparrow]

I guess I completely misread your question because I said it was "uncommon" :blush:. I thought your question was how common is it for biological family to come forward in the adoption process. That is uncommon. If your question is regarding how common is it for international adoptions to be for children that are not true orphans (no living parent or relative), then my answer is very common. I would have to say the majority of adoptions worldwide, including US domestic adoptions, are for children that are not true orphans. The AIDS epidemic in Africa may change that.

[deacongirl]

APs must research exhaustively to make sure they are working with an ethical agency, sadly many are not. Agencies like Holt work first to keep families together and see IA as a last resort. It is possible to complete an ethical international adoption, but most orphans are not healthy infant girls.

 

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/09/07/anatomy_of_an_adoption_crisis

http://www.adoptionintegrity.com/

[michelle l]

Going back to domestic adoption... most of the babies up for adoption here in the US have one or both parents still living. Nobody has an issue with this. If a teenage mother or a single mother, etc wants to give up their child for adoption, nobody throws a fit about it because the child isn't a true orphan. So why do people have such a hard time when an orphan from another country still has a living parent? I'm obviously not talking about cases when the parent did not want to give up their child, or was tricked into it, etc. I'm talking about when the parent felt it was in the best interest of the child to put him/her up for adoption. If somebody in the US does this, it's commended. If a parent does not feel that they are in a good position to care for a child, adoption is a wonderful alternative. Why then is this automatically looked at as a bad thing when it is international?

 

Hmm...many people do take issue with it, though not the majority. I think many of the folks who question the "good"ness of international adoption when children are not true orphan (or even when they are) likely fall into the group that would also not consider domestic adoption/relinquishment a wonderful alternative or call it commendable. (though some might agree it's sometimes necessary) Not being snarky, just saying there's overlap there.

 

I am not speaking out of naivety. I KNOW there is a lot of corruption in international adoption. That's why we have hague set up, etc. It is so important to make sure that the child is truly orphaned or relinquished. I am not at all condoning corruption in adoption. I am also fully aware that the best case scenario would be if all parents were ready and able to care for their children - emotionally, physically, financially, etc. But it simply isn't the case. I agree with this. I wish it were as cut and dry as I would like it to be, but it's just not. I am soooo for family preservation, but it's not always going to be able to happen.

 

Just throwing it out there.

 

PS: UNICEF's definition of an orphan is a child who has lost one or both parents.

 

.

[liv404]

Michelle, for the record, I am ALL for keeping families intact :001_smile: I wish adoption didn't have to exist. I wish there were no orphans.

 

In reference to putting your child up for adoption being commendable, I was setting it up against abortion in my mind, but failed to put that part into words. Obviously it's never the ideal to not raise your own child, but to those who have chosen adoption over abortion, I highly commend them!

[stripe]

Going back to domestic adoption... most of the babies up for adoption here in the US have one or both parents still living. Nobody has an issue with this. If a teenage mother or a single mother, etc wants to give up their child for adoption, nobody throws a fit about it because the child isn't a true orphan.

Actually, there have been some people who are concerned about African American children being adopted into white American homes, like the (infamous in some circles) black social worker group.

 

How about African American women sending their children to Canada, or Europe, because they feel they will have a better life there?

 

Do you see anyone on TV screaming about the loss to our country of these souls? Neither do I.

 

Other than that, I think the difference is that there is a perception that one is giving children up to be raised in basically the same type of culture one is from, or possibly somewhat better. Not that your entire country is a hellhole from which the only solution is ESCAPE. It cannot be the solution to world poverty, or the earthquake in Haiti, or anything else, to have ALL children from poor countries adopted by Americans. That just doesn't make sense.

 

I heard a man on NPR the other day from Louisiana saying

"If somebody takes my kids because I can't help myself — I just, I don't know," he says. "It's hard to think about things like that."

It is pretty horrific to think that being poor would be considered something for which one's children could or should be taken away. Clearly helping the parents makes more sense.

 

I did see a program on TV about a year ago (20/20 or Dateline type show) about a woman (in the US) who had surrendered parental rights to her son because of some health problems (on his part) and all the trouble it was to get him back, and how she felt she had been lied to and told it would be easy to get him back. Once he was "in the system," it was a nightmare. It was heartbreaking. (Tried to find reference and can't.)

[liv404]

It is pretty horrific to think that being poor would be considered something for which one's children could or should be taken away. Clearly helping the parents makes more sense.

 

Obviously! But I don't think anybody has referenced anything about children being TAKEN from parents and that being a good thing.

 

I'm all for helping the parents. But try implementing that globally. It's not as easy as handing over the money.

 

We sponsor a child in Africa. I'm all for that. I'm all for having children remain with their parents. I'm all for having children cared for and adopted within their own country/culture. These are all good things.

 

But as we type, there are upwards of 160-some million orphaned and vulnerable children in the world.

 

There is no easy solution. Adoption is not always the ideal, or the first choice. But it's one piece of the puzzle and many children and many parents have been immensely blessed by it.

[stripe]

Obviously! But I don't think anybody has referenced anything about children being TAKEN from parents and that being a good thing.

 

I was talking about the mentality (sometimes from parents' own minds, sometimes cultivated by adoption agencies) that if they send their kids to America, all will be perfect. Sometimes they are also (apparently) told their kids will come back and visit them. That is clearly lying. It is also sad that someone is so desperate that they would consider shipping their child overseas the only way for the child to have a remotely decent life.

 

It is worth considering what the role of money is in all of this.

[liv404]

I was talking about the mentality (sometimes from parents' own minds, sometimes cultivated by adoption agencies) that if they send their kids to America, all will be perfect. Sometimes they are also (apparently) told their kids will come back and visit them. That is clearly lying. It is also sad that someone is so desperate that they would consider shipping their child overseas the only way for the child to have a remotely decent life.

 

It is worth considering what the role of money is in all of this.

 

I agree 100%. This is why finding an ethical adoption agency is of utmost import.

[Celia]

So, I have friends adopting internationally. I really don't want to say what country.

 

Turns out, now that they're over there, the biological father of one of the children wants custody. I guess the parents are still alive, but rights were terminated b/c of neglect.

 

That surprises me. I never thought a country would allow the children adopted out of country when their parents are still living, and where there are other living relatives who maybe don't have custody, but want a relationship with the children.

 

It's all - messy. Not what I thought "caring for orphans" was supposed to be.

 

And fwiw - the country they're in is non-Hague compliant. I guess I see why :001_unsure:

 

What a challenging situation.

 

From my experience (having adopted internationally a few years ago), international adoption is messy business, more often than not. I know so many horror stories. My own daughter's adoption wasn't done legally in all respects, and she also has family that, although not able to care for her, did seem so very happy to see her again when we visited them when we had gone to her country to pick her up.

 

I would say this isn't uncommon, to have family member around who would like to maintain a relationship. But without anyone to safely have custody of the child, international adoption still may be the only choice other than a state-run orphanage or worse.

 

International adoption isn't ideal. It's often corrupt. It's heartbreaking to know that there are mothers out there who were lied to by adoption agencies 'hazing' to find children to profit off of. No matter how much diligence us adoptive parents put into trying to chose an agency that is ethical, it doesn't always turn out to be so. Having had my ear to the adoption community for several years now, I could tell you some horrific stories.

 

On the other hand, there is an honest need for adoptive families. My daughter would have had no chance of support otherwise. While her family did love her, her biological mother couldn't care for her, and due to a cultural stigma as well as poverty, nor would the rest of her family. Despite having parents alive, she was alone in this world. So being an orphan isn't the long and short of it all either.

 

When I was in this small poverty-stricken village, after just meeting with my daughter's bio family, a young mother carrying a child came up to me. She told me the little girl's name, one that was obviously made up to sound pleasing to me. The little child had been obviously just primped up in her very best. The mother knew I would be walking that way and had been waiting for me. She ran towards me and tried to put her in my arms, begging me to please take her too.

 

My eyes always well up with tears when I think back to that day. International adoption might be all screwed up. But it's also sometimes the only hope these kids have.

[Heather in Neverland]

This whole discussion is making me very uncomfortable. There are millions of children who do not have parents that are able to take care of them for whatever reason...a family takes that child in, adopts the child, and raises it as their own and that is a BAD thing?

 

Sure, it would be great if everyone was capable of raising the children they give birth to but that is not reality. My daughter's birthmom is 15 years old, lives in abject poverty and is already a social outcast in her culture for getting pregnant. She can't even take care of herself much less her child. She wanted a better life for her child than she could give the baby so she put her up for adoption. I think it was the most heart-wrenching and self-LESS act a mother could do.

 

It takes more than biology to be a parent. Adoption is a WONDERFUL thing and the bible speaks of it many times over including OUR OWN adoption into the family of God. He is the ultimate adoptive father. :001_smile:

[Cindy in C-ville]

Hey, I'm wondering if this family is from the same non-Hague country as the one from which we adopted our daughter, Katya, last year. If so, I would say that this is not an uncommon situation. Corruption ABOUNDS and often the last consideration is the child's best interest. I have PM'ed you with a few more specifics and a possible connection that I was not comfortable posting on the forum.

[deacongirl]

Adoption is wonderful. But it should be a last resort, and I want to be able to look my dd in the eye when she asks and say that we did everything possible to make sure it was in her case, and that we did everything possible to make sure our agency was ethical. There are far too many documented cases of corruption, deception, even actual kidnappings and APs have the power and $ to hold agencies accountable and to demand that no mother has been coerced or deceived out of parenting her child. APs need to have their eyes wide open and make the effort to do exhaustive research before choosing a country/agency.

[deacongirl]

I think Ethica says it well here:

http://www.ethicanet.org/ethica-responds-to-anatomy-of-an-adoption-crisis

"At its best, international adoption can provide a viable option for a family seeking options for their child, a home for a child who might not otherwise have one, and a child for a couple who seeks to add to their family. At its worst, international adoption tromps on the vulnerable and benefits the greedy, disregarding a most basic human right to family.

In 2007, we wrote, “Ethica believes that the collective adoption community has the knowledge and ability to perform ethical and legal adoptions, and that significant progress can be made in these areas—both in Vietnam and around the world.†The time to act, collaborate, and raise up in collective indignity has come. Let us no longer take “later†for an answer in the pursuit of justice."

[plansrme]

This whole discussion is making me very uncomfortable. There are millions of children who do not have parents that are able to take care of them for whatever reason...a family takes that child in, adopts the child, and raises it as their own and that is a BAD thing?

 

Sure, it would be great if everyone was capable of raising the children they give birth to but that is not reality. My daughter's birthmom is 15 years old, lives in abject poverty and is already a social outcast in her culture for getting pregnant. She can't even take care of herself much less her child. She wanted a better life for her child than she could give the baby so she put her up for adoption. I think it was the most heart-wrenching and self-LESS act a mother could do.

 

It takes more than biology to be a parent. Adoption is a WONDERFUL thing and the bible speaks of it many times over including OUR OWN adoption into the family of God. He is the ultimate adoptive father. :001_smile:[/quote/]

 

Nicely said. No one is in favor of babies being stolen or parents being coerced into giving up their children, but there are always going to be people who can conceive and give birth to a child but are not able to parent it, for one or more of a thousand different reasons. Adoption should never be considered a second-best option for those children.

 

I am fairly certain tht my own daughter would have died if she had been left in China. How could that be better than having her thriving in my home, with people who love her and would give their lives for her? I often think of her birth parents and how amazed they would be to see the young lady she has become. But do I think she would have been better off with them? Not for a second.

 

Terri

[tex-mex]

Yes, many times these kids are not orphans in the true sense of the word.

:iagree: Many adoptions done overseas are often kids taken from homes that were abusive, child of prostitutes, the parents were in horrific poverty and sold the child, or the parent in prison. I know of one family who adopted 2 girls from Kazakhstan a decade ago in which this was the case. One is special needs and now a teen -- the other in college soon to be married. Great family for those girls who needed love and a chance to succeed in life.

Edited December 6, 2010 by tex-mex

[deacongirl]

From John Raible, adult adoptee and AP:

http://johnraible.wordpress.com/about-john-w-raible/welcome-message-peace-through-justice/

 

"...If adoption is a service to children (and not to parents), why do we still allow money to change hands (between adults) when it comes to finding homes for children? When these kinds of questions go unaddressed and remain unexamined, the needs of one small elite group of wealthy individuals are allowed to override the needs of other larger groups with far less power and privilege. In my opinion, this dynamic fuels contention and ill will, and thus transracial adoption remains controversial. Even though they are hard to talk about, it is imperative that we figure out how to have open, honest conversations about race and about adoption... Transracial adoption is an incredible privilege and an awesome responsibility. In the words of Tatanka Yotanka (also known as Chief Sitting Bull), “Let us put our minds together and see what life we shall make for our children.â€"