HERE is an unusually honest article on international adoption by Maggie Jones in The New York Times. More adoptees, especially from South Korea, are becoming outspoken opponents of the practice of removing children from their homelands and their people to be raised in a strange land. They include Kim Stoker, who returned to South Korea after being raised in America.

“I get parents’ desperation to have children,” said Stoker …. “Accepting diverse families is great,” she said. But, she added, “I don’t think it’s normal adopting a child from another country, of another race and paying a lot of money. I don’t think it’s normal to put a child on a plane away from all its kin and different smells. It’s a very modern phenomenon.”

Let’s bear in mind that the practice of international adoption is yet another negative consequence of feminism, which has supported abortion and delayed child-rearing (and thus infertility), both of which have increased the desire to adopt children from foreign countries.

As Jones points out, it is almost impossible to regulate the foreign adoption business. Jones adopted a girl in Guatemala.

I began scouting agencies with the most ethical reputations. I heard repeatedly — though mostly from agencies and other parents — that there were safeguards (DNA tests of mothers and children; social-worker interviews with birth mothers) to protect adoptive and birth families. But almost as soon as I arrived at the Westin Hotel in Guatemala City to finalize the adoption of our daughter, I felt queasy. Everywhere, it seemed, there were lawyers and agency representatives handing over brown-skinned babies, born to impoverished mothers, to white, wealthy parents — some of whom might never return to Guatemala again, who might make no effort to encourage a link between their adopted children and their country or their birth families. My husband and I were eager not to be “those parents.” When the adoption was complete, instead of leaving the country, we drove with our daughters to a nearby city, where we spent several days. One night at a restaurant, a well-dressed Guatemalan man in his 50s or 60s passed my new daughter and me and muttered, “There goes another baby taken from our country.”

His comment might have referred to corruption: It would become increasingly clear that Guatemala’s adoption system was, like those in Ethiopia, Vietnam, Cambodia and elsewhere, plagued with illegal payments, coercion of birth mothers and in some cases outright stealing of babies. (Guatemala’s program shut down seven years ago.) Or maybe he was thinking about the fact that birth mothers, typically indigenous women who faced discrimination, had little access to counseling and no official waiting period after birth during which to change their minds. He may have been imagining what would happen if the thousands of dollars each family handed over to their adoption agency was used instead to help children stay in Guatemala. And then there was the issue that Kim Stoker has since raised: Should adopted children be brought up by people of a different race?

— Comments —

Hurricane Betsy writes:

“Should adopted children be brought up by people of a different race?”

Not only should they not be brought up by people of a different race, but it is best that orphans – if at all possible – be raised by blood relatives. The blood knows.

N. Ferreira writes:

First of all, I love your blog.

I think international adoption can be a great problem and must be avoided, at least as a general rule.

I’m Brazilian and worked with adoption in 1995 (only one year). I was not fond of international adoption.

However, it happened that I faced a particular case, with three black children. The oldest, T., was a six years old girl. The boys were three and one years old. They had no father. The mother was an alcoholic who had abandoned the children several times. She died. They were found living in the streets. There were no other relatives.

T. was a lovely and sweet girl. She was her brothers “mother.”

We found two couples to adopt the boys, but nobody wanted the girl, because of her age (six years old was considered old age). Nobody wanted to adopt three children also.

Little T. noticed the lack of visit and attention. She was unwanted. She became more and more sad and stopped speaking. Not even a word. She still cared a lot about her brothers, though.

I was told to split the children, but I couldn’t. They were family and belonged together.

I wrote several letters asking for help. I hoped some couple, in some place in my own country could adopt all the brothers. It wasn’t usual, but not impossible. We can’t stop trying. Unfortunately, no one wanted them.

A few months later, an old German nun visited me, presented herself and told me she would try to help.

The unexpected happened. She knew a German couple, in their forties, who lived in a little city in Germany, childless, willing to adopt all the black kids. Despite being German, the woman spoke some Portuguese (very uncommon). They had already done all the Brazilian and German red tape.

I was introduced to them and I told the truth. It was a difficult situation, no one knew how much the girl had really suffered, she needed help and anyone willing to adopt the children would face a hard work.

I admit I was terrified.

They spent a month living here with the children, in the Convent. They showed me all they had in their German city to help the children to learn the language and adapt at school. It was very good.

They really adopted the children. I saw them and they seemed very happy. Little T. was fine. She started talking again, was smiling. She was even singing simple German songs.

The German nun gave us some news months after the adoption. They were all fine and well adapted.

In a perfect world we would had found the father or other relatives. In the real world, however, this particular adoption was a miracle for these children.

I apologize for any mistake (my English is not very good).

Matthew H. writes:

Some of this sounds like adoptees complaining about First World Problems.

It is certainly true that international adoption is a symptom of a sick society. If abortion were both not legal and widespread, presumably there would be more babies available for adoption here in America. And if career women did not delay childbirth until their late 30’s and 40’s, they would be able to have their own children and would not need to adopt.  It is also true that the commodification of babies is very, very disturbing. So is the fact that many of the Guatemalan women who give up their babies for adoption are quite poor by US standards; most of them surrender their children willingly, and many probably do so for mercenary reasons, but the disparity in bargaining power is so great that the whole situation leaves a bad taste in one’s mouth. Finally, it is true that children who do not look like their parents will, by virtue of that fact, have a yearning to know more about their roots that will be difficult to fulfill.  Lots of white adoptees raised in white families have a deep desire to connect with their birth parents, and children born in Guatemala raised in white families probably have an even more intense desire to connect with their birth parents and their heritage.

But come on — being raised by a loving upper-middle-class family here in the US, as opposed to growing up in a Guatemalan shantytown,  is hardly the worst fate that can befall someone.  It seems to me that some of the adoptees are trying to play the victimology game that is, sadly, so popular in contemporary society.  Instead of recognizing that everyone suffers setbacks in life, and that one deals with hardships as best as one can, preferably with quiet dignity, people attempt to outdo one another with their tales of woe. They correctly note that contemporary society places a higher value on the crown of thorns than the brass ring, and they compete with one another to grab it.  This is not a good thing.

If these children were being ripped from the arms of their parents in  Guatemala, virtuous mothers and fathers who desperately wished to keep their children but tearfully chose to them up because they literally could not afford to feed them, the practice of international adoption would indeed be deplorable.  But is that really the case?  Central America is poor, but it isn’t that poor. It’s not Ethiopia or Bangalore.  Most of these women are probably unmarried mothers, the local equivalent of trailer trash who are — frankly —  cashing in on the opportunity to sell their own children.  Some of them probably regret it later on, but that is what they are doing when they place the kids with a wealthy foreign family.  The poor have moral agency too, and evidenced by slums throughout the world, poor people tend to make a lot of bad moral choices. If the adoptees weren’t raised by an upper-middle-class American family, they’d probably be raised by an indifferent single mother in some slum filled with drug abuse and crime,  not in the warm embrace of a loving Hispanic extended family that just happens to be poor.

Also, having white parents take their adopted children on periodic trips to Guatemala as the kids grow older seems well-intentioned but creepy.  By doing this they are only emphasizing the fact that those kids aren’t really theirs.  And will these trips really teach the kids anything about their “heritage,” or forge a deep connection with their ancestral home and identity, will they basically be strange vacations to dirty third wold slums that leave no lasting impression on the kids who, after all, will spend  99% of their time in America, immersed in American culture?  The harm from those trips seems to outweigh the good here, you are emphasizing the artificial nature of your family to your kids without getting any real benefit in return.

Honestly, being raised in an upper-middle-class home by parents who love you is not the worst fate in the world.  Adoptees should be grateful for that.

Pan Dora writes:

Personally I think Maggie Jones is the epitome of poise and restraint. If some ” well-dressed Guatemalan man in his 50s or 60s” had done what she states was done my response would have been that he should immediately trot on down to that adoption agency and see about getting himself one of those babies being exported. Ditto all that money going to the agency.

Folks who live in glass houses, you know …….

Sven writes:

One of my military friends and roommates was an adoptee from South Korea. In the barracks we were allowed to hang the flag of our home state in the hall. He always had the Korean flag even though he had spent all but the first few months of his life in Wisconsin. No matter how American he was, I think he knew he had missed something important.

Adoption can be painful even in the best of circumstances. I can only imagine how difficult it would be to properly raise a niece or nephew, let alone a child from a completely different country.

A more disturbing aspect of third world adoption is using it to prove how virtuous a person is, common among liberals and Christians both. Having adopted brown or black children, especially if one does so when they are able to have their own children, is a sort of sacrifice for a lot of whites, a bona fide qualification for sainthood.

James P. writes:

Maggie Jones writes:

“But almost as soon as I arrived at the Westin Hotel in Guatemala City to finalize the adoption of our daughter, I felt queasy. Everywhere, it seemed, there were lawyers and agency representatives handing over brown-skinned babies, born to impoverished mothers, to white, wealthy parents — some of whom might never return to Guatemala again, who might make no effort to encourage a link between their adopted children and their country or their birth families.”

Translation: my liberal urge to appear to be a saintly do-gooder is clashing with my liberal urge not to appear racist!

And if the Leftist claim that Latinos quickly assimilate is true, why does the child need a link to Guatemala? The kid is American now, right?

“He may have been imagining what would happen if the thousands of dollars each family handed over to their adoption agency was used instead to help children stay in Guatemala.”

Is there an organization that pays Guatemalans of all ages to stay there? How do I contribute to such a worthy cause?

Sven writes,

“A more disturbing aspect of third world adoption is using it to prove how virtuous a person is, common among liberals and Christians both. Having adopted brown or black children, especially if one does so when they are able to have their own children, is a sort of sacrifice for a lot of whites, a bona fide qualification for sainthood.”

I have seen this myself. A friend of mine told me a while ago that even though he had four children, his wife had announced that it was their “Christian duty” to adopt a Chinese girl. I refrained from commenting about a man’s duty to keep his wife’s outlandish impulses in check. Off they went to China, and came back with two girls (must have been “two for the price of one” day at the orphanage). I don’t know if he qualifies for sainthood, but he’s certainly making large sacrifices.

Hurricane Betsy writes:

You could make the same arguments against children who whine that they don’t like having been adopted by two homosexuals into a comfy home where they can have everything a child  needs (homosexuals are generally well off here) – as opposed to living in a slum or orphanage back home. Our society as a whole  places much value on being raised in an upper-middle-class American family where the homosexuality of the parents would be incidental.  Sure beats being raised  “by an indifferent single mother in some slum filled with drug abuse and crime”, Matthew.   That  you have two mothers or two fathers is merely one of life’s “setbacks”, don’t you think…

Laura writes:

Material comforts are less important than the ties of kinship. They just are. The awkward plight of international adoptees is made all the worse by those who think they should shut up and be grateful for the things they have been given.

It’s the same with children conceived through third-party reproduction. They too are told to be grateful when they point out that they have been denied the most basic conditions of a good childhood.

It is true that some of these adopted children would live hellish lives if left in their own countries, perhaps not claimed by any relatives, and it is true that their adoptive parents are very often loving and well-intentioned people who make great sacrifices for them. But the international trade in children prevents countries from facing the plight of unwanted children themselves. It prevents them from exercising the necessary love and charity and turns children too often into saleable products. It presents too much temptation to those who would like to financially benefit from this trade. The children are also taken so far from home, it is difficult for them to connect with their roots.

Laura writes:

Peter Dodd, who was adopted at the age of three from Germany, maintains that international adoption is a violation of human rights.

I don’t agree with everything he says (for instance, he blames high birth rates for adoption). But he makes some very good points.

Please follow and like us: