This guest blog post was written by Linda Gross.
This link is to an opinion article found on CNN dated January 17th, 2013, written from the perspective of a University of Minnesota woman who, in the process of trying to adopt a girl from Russia with her husband, has negatively experienced the recent ban on adoptions imposed by Russia.
The author explains the emotional grief of waiting unknowing as to whether they will be able to adopt the 2 year old girl they have met in person and already waited many months for.
While the author brings the unique and real experience of sharing the emotional tolls many uncertainties of the adoption process can bring, international or non, there are aspects of the political and social issues both between Russia and the United States, and surrounding international adoptions in general that could be served to investigate further.
First the issue of international adoptions as a lucrative source of economic trade should be brought to the forefront of critically exploring this current event. Many of the current news articles regarding this recent ban focus on the suggestions that Russia has imposed this ban in response to a recent blacklisting by the United States towards any Russian human rights violators (Penny, 2012). While the truth of this may provide insight into the “childish” behaviors of each country, I believe other details to be more important. First, in regards to Russia’s decision, if their focus is to prevent the mistreatment of their adopted children by families in the United States, I am curious as to why they are currently not a Hague-Convention country, which would work to provide more legally-supported assurances towards the safety of children against the profits sought about by middle-man adoptive agencies, in turn to assure adoptions to be in the best interest of the child (Penny, 2012). The ethical values of being a Hague Convention country, include examples such as ensuring proper efforts have been made first for the child to be adopted within their home country, and that adoptions are only processed through service providers who have been accredited at the Federal level, and receives proper documentation for each child. Second in regards to those in the United States who cry out that these children should not suffer as the result of petty international retaliation, it is worth noting, that while the United States is banned, other countries are not and international adoptions will still be regularly occurring in Russia, just not by us.
Second the societal interest in international adoptions versus adopting any of the thousands of waiting children in the United States also needs to be addressed. It should not go unsaid that the motive for seeking international adoption, though most families seek international adoptions as an act of philanthropic good-will, is also quite self-serving. While it seems taboo to mention, it must be acknowledged, as it comes at the expense of our country’s own children awaiting adoption, that the preference for young white babies by middle and upper class families who can afford them is a key desire underlying at least some outrage over this recent ban. This must be acknowledged, as it plausibly jeopardizes the health and well-being of international children (see baby-farms and other international atrocities), and contributes to the continued “less-desirable” children in long-term foster care, awaiting adoption and never receiving hope of families willing to take them on. Evidence suggests this lack of adoption relates to most of these children being older than the desired age and primarily African-American and Latino.
This enters in a key ethical and moral dilemma of how a governing body could possibly impose to tighten or relax the parameters parents are allowed to set in regards to their future adopted child. Currently, I personally believe it would be impossible to impose strict guidelines that would mandate parents to “be happy with whatever child they get”. Some may argue this is exactly what happens to biologically-expecting parents; however I would argue that a powerful societal value of childbirth lies in knowing that the child uniquely possesses the physical characteristics of exactly yourself and your partner. While biologically-expecting parents may deliver a child with unexpected health and mental needs, the intrinsic nature of the child being “your own” exists. If parents are unable to biologically produce a child in their likeness, or a likeness they could suffice to find equally appealing, is it unethical for them to try and achieve this during the adoption process? On a further related note given the rapidly developing field of genetics research, if made available to hone the genetics of their unborn child to possess certain physical or temperamental traits, is it unethical to do so, or is it the future of scientific advancement to genetically modify the next generations?
Regardless, it could be detrimental to the well-being of children to place them in homes of unwanting parents even if just by temperamental goodness-of-fit, let alone physical characteristics, hence the need for trial stays and the laborious process of ensuring positive connections between parents and child during current adoption processes. In the adoption process, it must be the well-being of the children which demands first priority over the desires and wish-lists of hopeful adoptive families. With that being said, I believe it is the skill and extent to which workers provide a carefully-planned and strongly-supported match between the two, that demonstrates the crux of building successful adoptions for both parties.
See Also:
Russia’s Ban on US Adoption Isn’t About Children’s Rights
Understanding the Hague Convention from the U.S. State Department