Who Will Fill the Empty Cribs?

 

Email To A Friend

Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.

Separate multiple addresses with commas

SPONSORED BY
 

The growing backlash against foreign adoptions is partly a response to exposés of aggressive networks of baby hustlers, in which unscrupulous middlemen charge prospective parents exorbitant fees while conning desperate families into giving up their children for a song. No country better illustrates the system's potential for abuse than Guatemala, which had become a favorite of anxious adoptive parents, especially from America. They were drawn by the few-questions-asked system that dispatched infants in a matter of months. Gays, singles and unmarried couples were welcome. Inspired by the lack of regulations, a ruthless class of jaladoras (pullers) began trolling the city slums and impoverished countryside, sometimes buying babies cheap (or, allegedly, stealing them) and selling them dear. Foreigners shelled out upwards of $35,000 for a Guatemalan waif, with shadowy foster homes and crooked bureaucrats playing midwife to the exchange. In the words of David Smolin, a law professor at Alabama's Samford University, foreign adoptions had turned into "baby laundering."

Such abuses galvanized human-rights advocates and eventually led to the creation of the Hague convention. More than a decade in the making, the convention is designed to restore order, transparency and decency to the adoption process. Signatory countries vow to outlaw adoption for profit; to favor domestic adoptions over international ones; to carefully screen prospective adoptive parents, and to keep a tight rein on social workers, adoption agencies and the juvenile courts. Nations may no longer release a child to a foreign family without formal consent from the birth parents. "The business of selling babies is over," says Rolando Morales, the Guatemalan lawmaker who led the fight to clean up adoptions in his country.

Though many countries immediately supported the treaty when it was first drafted in the 1990s, they have been much slower to implement it. No country could ratify the convention without first establishing a central authority to oversee adoption, and that was a challenge for some nations to pull off. China ratified the treaty only in 2005; Guatemala joined in 2002 but private adoption lawyers challenged it as unconstitutional. After a long national debate, the government finally passed implementation legislation late last year—though it remains unclear how well it will work. Even the U.S., which signed in 1994, only ratified the treaty in December, at least in part because it got so bogged down in transforming the state-run system into a federal one. But with 72 governments now onboard, momentum appears on the side of new regulation. "If the bureaucracy can end the trafficking and the bad matching, it will enable a future for intercountry adoptions which could otherwise be heading for collapse," says Selman.

In the long run, the Hague convention could prevent abuses. But in the short term, imposing tougher standards, screening children and would-be foster families more closely and eliminating for-profit foster care may mean longer stays in orphanages for many children. And the treaty only applies to the countries that have ratified it; those that haven't are free to do business as usual—even with those who have signed on.

There remain flaws in the system that even the best treaty cannot remedy. Orphanages everywhere are overflowing with severely handicapped or older children who often bear deep physical or emotional scars. "Everyone wants a blue-ribbon baby, not the 4-year-old with AIDS, or the 10-year-old with one leg," says Selman. Some adoptive parents struggle to find effective treatments for their children's ills; others seek to give them up. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recently found that 81 children adopted overseas were relinquished to foster-care agencies in 14 states in 2006.

In the vast majority of cases, however, foreign adoptions are successful. And for couples desperate to adopt, the shrinking pool of available children is frustrating. Some are turning to Africa, where AIDS, political instability and ethnic violence have taken their toll on families. In Kenya, adoption authorities say the recent upheaval has curtailed domestic adoptions, as parents wonder about each baby's ethnic origin. Celebrity adoptions like those by Madonna and Angelina Jolie have certainly raised the continent's profile. "Our phones were ringing off the hook with families saying, 'We want a baby girl that looks like Zahara'," says Cheryl Carter-Shotts, founder of Americans for African Adoptions, referring to the Ethiopian child whom Jolie adopted in 2005.

Label

Newsweek Top Stories
NEWSWEEK's 20/10
NEWSWEEK's 20/10

Our decade-in-review project recalls the highs and lows of the last 10 years.

Obama's Promises
Obama's Promises

Is the new president fulfilling his campaign pledges? Or falling short?

The Decade in 7 Minutes
The Decade in 7 Minutes

Video: A fast-paced review of the best and worst moments. Don't blink.

Accidental Celebrities
Accidental Celebrities

From Levi Johnston to Elian Gonzalez, these people never expected to be in the spotlight.

Discuss

Sponsored by

Member Comments

  • Posted By: A Cole @ 02/18/2008 10:55:54 AM

    As the mother of a son adopted from Romania, I appreciate you publishing this article. Unfortunately, as in the case of Romania, it is not true that all these countries are now better able to take care of their abandoned children. Many officials just want to claim that they are. Adoption procedures should be transparent and encourage local families to adopt, but children do not have a shelf life. It is ironic as well as tragic that more barriers to international adoption and even local adoption are being erected at a time when all current research shows the devastating effects of a lack of parental bonding at every stage of a child's development.

  • Posted By: Mom2FiveRO @ 01/31/2008 10:20:37 PM

    I praise you for writing about and publishing this story. It is a very grim reality for many - - both children without families, and families without children, that is is getting harder and harder to be brought together. Organizations such as UNICEF, who are supposedly FOR the children's needs, are in effect harming children if their work results in the child never ever getting his or her own FOREVER family. I am the mother of five internationally adopted children and I can share that they are loved, appreciated, and cared for as much if not moreso than their American-born peers!

    Again, thank you for bringing this to the readers' attention. It is a wonderful start to opening this reality to all to see. I hope there will be further articles too, on the topic, that can ultimately HELP the children.

  • Posted By: efg4 @ 01/31/2008 10:09:14 PM

    It is good to see the mainstream media get the point that adoptive families have known for three or four years: UNICEF is the biggest worldwide organization lobbying to keep children in their countries of birth, at whatever cost. They say that they support international adoption, but in practice, they oppose it at every turn. Like other ideologues on the left, they treat children as members of groups rather than as the unique individuals they are, with a God-given right to a family of their won.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse