My last blog was an overview of the Hague Convention on International Adoption, a treaty which the U.S. put into effect two years ago and which is still being implemented in many countries, although some countries have chosen to continue adoption as usual without joining the Convention. This blog will raise some possible concerns with adoption procedures according to the Hague Convention.
Hague-related concerns center not so much on countries that did not adopt the treaty, but with countries which have signed the treaty, but do not have the resources to implement all of its provisions by the effective date. Nearly a thousand Guatemalan cases which were begun before 2008 (Guatemala’s effective date was December 31, 2007) are still in limbo. Major adoption agencies are discouraging parents from filing new cases. Kazakhstan announced May 1 of this year that as of May 15, they would stop accepting new applications for adoption while they focused on updating their procedures to comply with the Hague treaty. Adoption professionals working with Kazakhstan say cases already in progress will proceed during the updating process.
One of the major concerns with the status of adoption in Hague-Convention countries is that new requirements for documenting a child’s abandonment and/or orphan status will mean a slower adoption process, which means kids will remain in institutions for a longer period of time, and will be older when they are adopted. Many countries, both Hague and non-Hague, are also mandating that a certain number of months be spent trying to find an adoptive family in the home country before children are released for international adoption.
I share this concern. Having one daughter who arrived at age eight months and another who came just before her first birthday, I can say that the younger one’s adjustment was much easier. The older one was much more aware of differences, much more set in a sleeping routine which was difficult to adapt to the extreme time zone difference, and much more used to certain things being done only by her foster mother.
This trend results from Hague requirements, but also from countries trying to reduce their international adoptions due to media pressure. Vocal opponents of adoption, especially international adoption, have gained a foothold in the media. Some countries are embarrassed by assertions that as countries become economically developed, they should stop “exporting” children. Some countries have responded by setting an arbitrary “quota” of international adoptions per year, progressively fewer each year. But when a quota is reached for a calendar year, the children who’ve been matched with families just wait until January of the next year, which of course fills up that year’s quota all the faster and makes more children wait until the following January. Sometimes the quota is reached by July.
Some parents also may be deterred from adopting by knowing that an infant referred to them may be a toddler by the time of adoption. (Click here to read more about toddler adoption.)
Of course, some countries really need better documentation of a child’s abandonment or orphan status. We don’t want a repeat of what happened in Haiti after the earthquake in January, when some Americans were accused of planning to have children with living parents adopted to the U.S. after their parents were allegedly told the children were going to a “camp” in the Dominican Republic until the post-quake hardships eased. Whether these charges are true or not, we must have transparent processes to safeguard everyone’s rights and not give international adoption a bad name, which will only result in fewer children finding stable families.