Work

INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION ON THE INTERNET

Paper presented to the European parliament debate on inter-county adoption 16th May 2005

Authors: Shihning Chou, M.Sc. (Corresponding author), Melanie Kirkaldy, B.Sc., Kevin Browne, Ph.D.

Affiliation: Centre for Forensic and Family Psychology, University of Birmingham
Abstract

Many adoption agencies operate on the internet to promote their ‘services’ when such activities seem more financially driven than child focussed. This study investigated whether intercountry adoption agencies on the internet upheld the principles of the UNCRC (1989) and the Hague Convention (1993).

A systematic search on the UK based Google search engine (www.google.co.uk) was carried out. The words ‘international adoption agency’ were entered with the command that all the words had to appear in the title. All the titles returned from the search were looked at to remove duplicates, sub-pages, broken links and non-agency sites. Websites confirmed to be active agency sites were then examined using a list of criteria derived from the UNCRC and the Hague Convention. Frequencies and chi-square were calculated.

The search yielded 2,383 hits, of which 116 were adoption agencies. Out of the 116 agencies, 84% of the websites displayed photographs of children. Of these 84%, 11% showed photos of children who had been adopted and 30% displayed photos of children available for adoption. Of those that displayed photos of children available for adoption, 76% also displayed personal information such as name, date of birth, and/or medical/social information. In 37% of the websites, it was clearly stated that potential adoptive parents are allowed to select a child they would like to adopt and 34% offered the option to apply online. The average total fee for intercountry adoption was $20,338 with an average application fee of $260. Furthermore, 18% of those agencies used inappropriate terminology that promotes children as commodity and may attract paedophile interest.

Overall, it was estimated that at least 38% of the agencies are in breach of the UNCRC and the Hague Convention. Policy implications are also discussed.
INTRODUCTION

Extent of intercountry adoption

There has been a sharp increase in the number of intercountry adoption over the past three decades and a parallel decrease in the number of national adoptions in infancy (Cohen, 2002; Selman, 2000). Intercountry adoption has been used as a solution of poverty and child abandonment in less developed countries where there is a lack of proper child care and welfare services (REFs). However, there has been debate about the appropriateness of this approach. First of all, only 3% to 4% of the children in institutions are true orphans (i.e. parents deceased) (Browne et al., 2004; UNICEF, 2003). The legitimacy of those with living parents and relatives being placed for intercountry adoption without prior attempt to rehabilitate within their countries is highly questionable. Even in cases where intercountry adoption is the only option left for a child, concerns have been expressed over the risk those children are placed under through the intercountry adoption practice (Selman, 2001).

It is difficult to ascertain the true figures of the number of intercountry adoption worldwide due to the lack of central and unified system in recording intercountry adoption cases (Cohen, 2003; Selman, 2000). For example, in England and Wales, the statistics on adoption do not distinguish between domestic and intercountry adoptions. The United States, however, publishes the number of visas issued to children adopted abroad. Despite the difficulties, estimates have been made by using various sources from various countries. Kane (1993) estimated that the minimum number of intercountry adoption between 1980 and 1989 was approximately 162,000 per year. It was also estimated that there is a shortfall of 5-10% and the actual total for that period lay between 170,000 and 180,000. Estimates for the early 1990s (Duncan, 1993) ranged between 15,000 and 20,000 worldwide. A more recent study estimated the number for 7 major receiving countries between 1993 and 1997 is between 16,027 and 23,199. These figures indicate an increase in intercountry adoption since the early 1980s.

Psychological issues and adoption practice

Research has shown that the development of a secure attachment to carers is important for healthy adjustments throughout the lifespan (e.g. refs). However, children that have been through adoption may be deprived of such opportunities. Prior to adoption, there may have been a more problematic prenatal or reproductive history in the first place (e.g. Bohman, 1970; Losbough, 1965). More importantly, there is often a lack of sensitive care and secure attachment prior to adoption, especially those who have lived in institutions (ref). The insecurity in those children makes them more vulnerable and more difficult to handle. Once the decision of adoption is made, the transition between home, any form of alternative placements and adoption home, if not handled sensibly, could provoke further uncertainty and anxiety (Yarrow & Klein, 1980). Throughout the process, adopted children have to go through a series of loss, including the loss of biological families, extended families, identify or ethnic connections, if adoption is interracial or international (Brodzinsky 1990, 1993; Smith & Brodzinsky, 1994). Therefore, they require comprehensive assessments and sensitive handling by skilled professionals.

It is hoped that secure attachments to adoptive parents could gradually form after adoption if provided with stability. However, Brodzinsky (1985) argued that attachment formation in adoptive families could be undermined by the complications during transitions. For example, childless couples who have not adequately resolve their feelings about their infertility may resent one another and/or the adopted child, which destabilise the family as a whole. Another factor which may affect parent-child relationships is the stress, uncertainty and anxiety adoptive parents experience while seeking to adopt and undertaking necessary assessments and the impact of such experiences on their mental health. Later in life, adopted children may find it difficult to come to terms with their adopted status and experience confusion about their own identity. Therefore, adoption, especially intercountry adoption, should not be considered until all other options have been exhausted.

International legislations

The international legislation that promotes child rights principles is the United Nations Convention on the Rights to the Child (UNCRC, 1989). The principles by which govern the practice on moving children across borders are outlined in the Hague Convention (1993), which is essentially based on the UNCRC (1989).

Principles in the UNCRC that are related to intercountry adoption are as follows;

Article 8 The state has a responsibility to protect the identity of the child
Article 9 The child has a right to live with their parents.
Article 16 Personal information of the child should be protected and not displayed for the public to view.
Article 20 Children should only be placed for adoption after attempts to rehabilitate the family have failed following foster care.
Article 21 Adoption should only be carried out in the best interest of the child and by competent authorities.
Article 23 A disabled child has the right to special care. Foster and adopting families must be trained to deal with special needs and adoption should only take place when needs are addressed by adoption families.

The above legal principles are in line with research evidence on good practices that safeguard children’s physical and psychological well beings. The state has the responsibility to protect children from physical harm and child care practice should ensure the optimal development and maintenance of secure attachment to their primary carers. Hence, intercountry adoption should only be considered as the last resort and when it is truly in the child’s best interest. The states should ensure that both the children and potential adoptive families are carefully assessed and selected and families are matched to the children’s needs. A mechanism in which states can effectively follow up children after adoption should be in place to ensure children settle in well and are able to develop secure attachment to their adoptive parents. This is even more important for children with special needs.

Specifically in relation to intercountry adoption, the Hague Convention (1993) states that

Article 4 The child must be adoptable
Article 32 Only reasonable fees should be charged

These legal restrictions ensure that children are not placed in danger where both child and parental rights can be easily relinquished legally and services would not be financially driven.

Use of internet

With the growing popularity of the internet, it has been a dramatic increase in the number of adoption agencies setting up websites and/or directly offering their services on the internet. It allows easy access to agencies and relevant information. However, it has been noted that the type of information and services offered on the internet has been poorly regulated. As a result, children are placed at risk of abuse and exploitation. For example, it was found that many websites show photographs and personal details of children available for adoption (e.g. Browne & Chou, 2004). The same study was also found that some websites use inappropriate language which promotes children as commodity or may attract paedophile interest (Elliot, Browne and Kilcoyne, 1995; O’Connell, 2003). There is an urgent need to investigate the extent of the violations of child rights those agencies pose. Policy implications should be discussed and a reform of the current legislations may be needed.

Aims & objectives

The aim of this study was to investigate the extent to which agencies operating on the internet violate the principles set out in the UNCRC (1989) and the Hague Convention.
METHODS

Search strategy

A systematic search was carried out on a PC through the Microsoft Internet Explorer on at 15:00 on 28 September 2004. The search engine used was the UK based Google search (www.google.co.uk). Search term was ‘international adoption agency’ entered with a request that all the words had to appear in the title. All the other settings were left as default. The total number of hits was recorded and the titles returned from the search were looked at to remove duplicates, sub-pages, broken links and non-agency sites. However, non-agency websites that contained links to or lists of actual agency sites were also used to identify additional agencies. Finally, websites that were confirmed to be active agency sites were then examined using a list of criteria.

Criteria and variables

A checklist was applied to each website and the following information was extracted from each website:

• The website address
• The name of the agency
• The type of the agency (profitable or non-profitable)
• The country where the agency was registered
• The donor countries
• The receiving countries
• The cost of the adoption process (i.e. application fees, agency fees and approximate total cost)
• Agency names that encourage paedophile fantasy or implying ‘market promotion’ (e.g. ‘angel’, ‘heart’, ‘loving’, ‘hope’ or ‘dreams’)
• Terminology that encourage paedophile fantasy or implying ‘market promotion’ (e.g. ‘angel’, ‘heart’, ‘loving’, ‘hope’ or ‘dreams’)
• Whether children with special needs are available
• Whether it displays photos of potential adoptees
• The selection process of children for adoption
• Whether general information on adoption is freely available (i.e. do prospective parents have to register details or pay in order to obtain further information)
• Whether an escort option is available
• Whether post-adoption follow ups and support are provided
• Whether it gives the option of applying to adopt online

Treatment of data

All the websites and information were entered into SPSS where frequency counts and Chi-square were carried.

RESULTS

Search results

The search yielded a total number of 2,383 hits, of which 116 were adoption agencies. All the agencies identified in this study were based in the United States and there were 62 different donor countries. On average, every agency dealt with 5.6 donor countries. The top five donor countries were Russia (n=88), China, (n=75), Ukraine (n=75), Guatemala (n=72) and Kazakhstan (n=53). It was found that 37% of the agencies have a website address ending in .com, 59% ending in .org, 3% ending in .net and 1% ending in .ru.

Findings

Overall, 12% of the agencies were found to have inappropriate names and 18% of all the agencies use inappropriate terminology. Of the 18%, 57% displayed personal information (such as medical information) on children available for adoption.

All the agencies charged potential adoptive parents application and/or agency fees. There are 48.3% of the agencies stated that they charged application fees and 2.6% stated that they did not with 49.1% did not specify whether they charged application fees or not. Of the 50.9% that clearly stated the application charge, the fees upon application alone ranged from free to US$1,000 with an average of US$260. In terms of agency fees, 37% specified the amount, 0.9% clearly stated that they did not charge agency fees and 62.1% did not state whether or not they charged agency fees. Of those that specified the amount of agency fees they charged (37.9%), it ranged from free to US$9,400 with an average of US$4,228. The minimum total cost ranged from US$7,500 to 35,000 with an average of US$20,338.

Not surprisingly, 84% of all the websites displayed photographs of children. Of these 84%, 59% displayed general photographs for illustrative purpose; 11% showed photos of children who had already been adopted and 30% displayed photos of children available for adoption. Of those that displayed photos of children available for adoption (n=29), 76% (n=22) also showed date of birth, name or medical/social information. Eighteen percent of the websites used terminology that may encourage paedophile fantasy or seemingly ‘promote’ children like commodity. In 37% of the websites, it was clearly stated that potential adoptive parents are allowed to select a child they would like to adopt and 34% offered the option to apply online. Ironically, nearly half (47%) of the websites did not provide enough general information about adoption process and regulations.

A total of 51 agencies (44%) specified that children with special needs are available for adoption. However, of these 51 agencies, only 27 (53%) clearly stated the provision of post adoption follow up and support.

Associations between factors

Chi-square was utilised to explore associations between factors. The display of children’s photographs was found to be positively associated with the use of inappropriate terminology (?2 = 19.74, df = 1, p < 0.0001) as well as the use of inappropriate names (?2 = 6.26, df = 1, p < 0.05) where websites contained inappropriate terminology were more likely to display photographs of children. It was also found that agencies that displayed photographs of children were more likely to allow parents to select a child (?2 = 27.64, df = 1, p < 0.0001).

It was found that none of the agencies that had inappropriate names gave indications of cost. There is no difference in the charges between those registered as commercial (.com) and those registered as non-commercial (.org).

Overall, there are 38% of agencies are in breach of the principles of the UNCRC (1989) and the Hague Convention (1993) by

• Displaying photo listings of children;
• Using fantasy terminology; OR
• Allowing parents to select a child.

DISCUSSION

The results in this study have highlighted a number of major problems in the current intercountry adoption practice, the most fundamental of which is that the current practice does not always prioritise children’s needs or respect children’s rights. This is highlighted by the fact that over a third of the websites explicitly gave adoptive parents the power to select a child they wish to adopt and less than half specify the provision of post adoption follow up. One agency ‘Adopt an Angel’ (www.adopanangel.org) quotes ‘we specialise in providing a child search designed especially for your needs.’ It can also be illustrated by the breach of children’s privacy, as the agencies expose those children’s personal photographs and personal information to anyone having access to the internet, including child sex offenders. Also concerning is the use of inappropriate terminology which promote children as products and possibly attract paedophile interest. A website (www.precious.org) argued in favour of photolistings as they speed up the waiting time by making images and information more accessible to potential adoptive parents. Such justification is feeble as allowing adoptive parents to select a child based on the child’s look hardly addresses the child’s real needs. Also, it does not outweigh the violation of children’s privacy and the danger of those images misused by paedophiles.

The other controversial aspect is the financial gains through intercountry adoption. The National Adoption Information Clearinghouse (naic.acf.hhs.gov) estimate the total cost of intercountry adoption to be in the region of US$7,000 to $30,000, which is confirmed by the current study. However, the total fees stated by agencies are only a guide, as many do not specify travel costs and other expenses such as post adoption follow up. Also, the application fees can range from free to $1,000 and agency fees from free to $9,400, which seems a huge variation for theoretically the same services. As long as there is financial profit, international adoption inevitably turns into a market economy where national adoption by people living in less economically developed countries cannot compete with those who can afford to pay the fees. Hence, there is a consumer driven ‘export’ of children from less economically developed to more economically developed countries. While this market mechanism dominates the process, the children involved are in a very vulnerable position as the consumers (potential adoptive parents) always have the power over the products (the children) they desire and as a result, children’s well beings are compromised. This was evident in Romania where children were moved from institution to foster care for a few months to be nursed back to a healthy state before being moved abroad to their adoptive family (REF). Children experienced continuous disruptions which undermine attachment formation and security as a result, but this was the common practice aimed to meet adoptive parents’ demands and expectation of having a relatively healthy and manageable child.

A major limitation of this study is that the search was not exhaustive, as there was an estimate of 3,000 registered agencies in the United States in 2004 (www.nolo.com) and the current sample only covered 4% of these agencies. More agencies may be found through other sources and search engines.

Recommendations

First of all, there is an urgent need to tighten the Hague Convention and national legislations in relation to intercountry adoption.
1. Fees: Article 32 of the Hague Convention states that only reasonable professional fees can be charge but a clearer definition of what is deemed ‘reasonable’ is urgently needed (Duncan, 2000). There should be no charge for parents who wish to adopt and government should have the power and resources to oversee and follow up adoption cases.
2. Assessment of children and their biological families: Guidelines on the criteria to be met to prove a child adoptable are essential. The simple legal necessity that a biological parent has not been in contact with the child for over 6 months does not protect children’s rights. There is a State responsibility under the UNCRC (Art. 19 and 21) to comprehensively assess the parents’ chances of being rehabilitated to care for their child with appropriate health and social service support before considering alternative care of any kind.
3. Assessment of prospective adoptive parents: a detailed screening process of adoptive parents should be universally implemented. Currently, regulations on the eligibility for international adoption are varied across countries and even across different States in the USA. There are also huge discrepancies in the regulations between national and international adoptions where national adoptions are governed under much tighter regulations. It is important that the same standards are applied to both national and international adoption in terms of safeguarding children’s physical safety and psychological well beings.
4. Selection: It is paramount that the adoptive parents are selected based on the child’s needs and the placement decision has to be in the child’s best interest. To protect children’s privacy and safety, the agencies should not display personal photos and personal information on the website. They should only be released to adoptive parents who are deemed suitable and matched to a child. Furthermore, the language should be more factual and strictly professional. Overly emotive words must be avoided to prevent commercial promotion or paedophile interest.
5. Transition: Once decision is made, both the child and the adoptive parents should be prepared for the transition to ensure sensitive care is provided to the child. The process should be gradual and based on individual child’s needs and ability to adjust rather than the adoptive parents’ timescale. On the other hand, adoptive parents should receive support for the change of their life and to deal with the stress and their adverse experience prior to adoption.
6. Follow up: Both the receiving and donor states have the responsibility to follow up children’s progress and ensure services are available for those with needs. Any services provided by non-governmental sector do not relinquish the responsibility from the government (Council of Europe, 2004).
Address for correspondence:

Shihning Chou
Centre for Forensic and Family Psychology
School of Psychology
University of Birmingham
Edgbaston
Birmingham
B15 2TT

Tel: 0121 414 7259
Fax: 0121 414 8248
E-mail: s.chou@bham.ac.uk