Babies for the taking?
Blogged by: Ruth Gidley
Until now, Hollywood star Angelina Jolie has received fairly sympathetic publicity over her international family - a son from Cambodia, a daughter from Ethiopia, and the biological daughter she gave birth to in Namibia. But this week, Jolie's latest adoption, a boy from Vietnam, has exposed everyone's favourite humanitarian celebrity to some less friendly coverage.
Bloggers are accusing Jolie of having an "adoption addiction", and there's a short video doing the rounds under the title of Womb Raider, in which an African chief tells Jolie to leave his people's children alone.
It's a play, of course, on the Tomb Raider films in which Jolie played the animated action heroine from the computer game of the same name.
The topic of international adoptions is an emotive subject that the Guardian covers really well this week with a story from Guatemala, where international adoptions are so common that if you're on a flight there from the United States you'll probably overhear someone talking about it in the airport.
Journalist Jo Tuckman says few other countries offer children so young or so quickly as Guatemala. If you keep away from all the debate about whether it's ok for babies to grow up away from the culture of their birth, then maybe adoption is a way of matching up the needs of a deprived child with adults desperate for a child to love.
The trouble is, some countries are dogged by scandals about whether babies have actually been signed away against the biological mother's will, or whether documents have been signed by profiteers without any real link to the child.
I say profiteers because it's not cheap to adopt a child this way - as well as negotiating complicated logistics and legal work, a lot of money changes hands. As a rough guide, a mother tells the Guardian she was offered about $1,400 for her baby, and that was what initially led her to agree, before she changed her mind and tried to get the child back. But international adoptions regularly cost upwards of $15,000. So there's good money to be made.
Pop star Madonna found out how morally complex it can get when she adopted a toddler from an orphanage in Malawi who turned out to have a living father and grandmother who were ambivalent about losing their link with the boy.
The Guardian article about Guatemala includes a U.S. State Department list of top 10 countries for international adoptions to the United States. Of course, it would be just as interesting to look at the lists from France or Canada or Britain, but I found this intriguing.
China is number one, with 6,463 adoptions to the United States last year. Guatemala - with a population a nine-thousandth of the size of China's - is second. It gave away more than 1 percent of its newborns last year for international adoptions, 4,943 altogether, the Guardian says.
Moving down the list, past Russia at number three, South Korea fourth, Ukraine at seven, there's not much to say. But Ethiopia, at number five, rings a bell. Oh yes - that's where Angelina Jolie's second adopted child comes from. India is tenth.
Kazakhstan, at number six, is a complete surprise to me, especially since we've been told that most Americans didn't know where the central Asian country was until British comedian Sacha Baron Cohen put it on the map as the homeland of his offensive but ingenous character Borat, based on a composite of Balkan stereotypes. Nonetheless, according to these figures, at least 587 Kazakh children found new homes in the United States.
The fact that both Colombia and Liberia feature in the top 10 makes me want to know more about the link between easy adoptions and conflicts. I'm keenly aware that Guatemala still bears the cultural scars of a country only 10 years on from the end of a brutal civil war. Liberia, meanwhile, is struggling to recover from a civil war that left around 250,000 dead, forced more than half the population from their homes, and left huge numbers of girls and women living with horrific memories of rape.
It doesn't compare to the numbers of adoptions from somewhere like China, but even 353 Liberian adoptions in a year means almost one a day, and that's just to the United States. It made me think.
I'm sitting in London, so someone else would be better placed to investigate this, but I've got a lot of questions. Are there inordinate numbers of orphans and unwanted children in Liberia? Does local legislation make it easy for foreigners to adopt? Are prospective parents attracted by agencies who offer to act as proxies so Americans don't need to travel to Liberia to get their baby?
It's interesting to consider Liberia's historical connection to the United States. The nation's foundation in 1847 as a state of freed slaves "repatriated" to Africa from the United States and Caribbean sowed the seeds of conflict in years to come, as descendants of the Americo-Liberians dominated control of government and natural resources for decades, despite being only 5 percent of the population.
So first people were taken from West Africa to enslavement in the Americas and the Caribbean, then freed slaves were sent "back" there, and now Liberian children are being adopted and taken to the United States. I hope they grow up happy and surrounded by love.
Reuters AlertNet is not responsible for the content of external websites.
9 responses to “Babies for the taking?”
Please note that comments should not be regarded as the views of Reuters.
Leave a Reply
When you submit a comment to us we request your name, e-mail address and optionally a link to a website. Please note where you submit a website address, we may link to it via your name. By sending us a comment, you accept that we have the right to show the comment and your name to users. Although we require your email address, this will not be published on the site, and is only required to enable us to check facts with you, e.g. if you are making a claim we can not confirm easily. Additionally, if you would like your comment removed at anytime, you'll have to use this e-mail address when you contact us. To remove a comment at any time please e-mail us at blogs-(at)-reuters-(dot)-com (address obscured to avoid spam) specifying who you are and what you would like removed. We moderate all comments and will publish everything that advances the post directly or with relevant tangential information. We reserve the right to edit comments in order to maintain the quality of the comments, and may not include links to irrelevant material. We try not to publish comments that we think are offensive or appear to pass you off as another person, and we will be conservative if comments may be considered libelous. Reuters will use your data in accordance with Reuters privacy policy. Reuters Group is primarily responsible for managing your data. As Reuters is a global company your data will be transferred and available internationally, including in countries which do not have privacy laws but Reuters seeks to comply with its privacy policy.
Ruth Gidley has been on the AlertNet team since late 1999. Before that, she lived in Guatemala, working first with a small local NGO and then as a journalist for a Central American news service. Ruth, who has a Masters in Latin American Studies, has edited a book on human rights in Guatemala, and written chapters for books on truth monuments and on Native American traditions.
17 Mar 2007 13:35:57 GMT
As as child who never knew a mother's love I am appalled at what I have just viewed. Angelia Jolie is a wonderful woman with the desire to give a motherless child a home. What is the problem? Do you have a mother? If so, why deprive a child of experiencing the love and warmth so much needed. If only I had a mother. I would give anything to have had a mother. For whatever reason you are doing what you are doing I ask that God touch your heart so that love will abide within.
17 Mar 2007 22:50:04 GMT
Child available.
Free to a good home. She's got a good home to offer. Slam Dunk folks. Let's not be critical of big hearted people. Pumping babies out in an over populated world is a destructive addiction. Taking care of them is noble.17 Mar 2007 22:57:18 GMT
I am an American mother of a 23 year old adoped daughter born in South Korea. With all due respect, I think your article is simplistic and uninformed as well as being -- as Motherless Child pointed out -- callous about the very real needs and suffering of many children.
Wherever in the world there is conflict, poverty, epidemic, political and natural disasters, there will be more children in need of adoptive parents. It these situations, it is inevitable that numerous birth parents are dead, or missing, or unable to provide for the children. Moreover, it is often the case that government or charitable institutions cannot provide for the children either. (Russian and East European adoptees coming to the US often come from orphanages that are understaffed and poorly run. Many of these children have health, emotional, and developmental problems that would never be addressed if the children were not adopted by Americans.) Yet, you seem to be suggesting that when American couples adopting children from troubled parts of the world is a kind of theft. You seem to assume that for a child to grow up in a country where the culture matches the child's ethnicity is the most important factor in determining the child's ultimate well-being. In today's world, especially, that seems to me to be a sort of racist viewpoint. I know numerous happy, well-adjusted, foreign-born children adopted into American families who very clearly have led better lives that they would have if they had not been adopted and had stayed in their native countries. I think it is wrong to say that a person's culture must match their genes in all cases. I also want to note that your article includes very little real information about inter-country adoptions. Mostly you repeat from the Guardian article, which focused on only one country and one aspect of international adoption. Clearly, adoptions should be properly regulated and there are countries where abuses occur. But you write as Guatamalian adoptions are typical of all international adoptions -- which they are not. At the time we adopted our daughter, the vast majority of foreign adoptees coming to the US were Korean. This was because there were long-time established practices and reputable adoption agencies had working relationships with social and government agencies in South Korea. As the Korean economy has grown the number of children being offered for adoption has dropped. Meanwhile, the number of children being offered from some other countries has grown and agencies that Placed Korean children in the past are placing more Chinese and Russian children. The relationships between international adoption agencies and particular countries is one factor that affects where children come from. Another factor is the laws of the particular countries, which can and do change. A some times, a country may be willing to let children be adopted abroad; at other times, not, as a result of internal economic or political factors. You talk about international adoptions to European countries as if they are sure to be similar to American figures, lumping the developed world together. But you have made no mention at all about differences in immigration laws. My impression, from when I've travelled and lived in Europe, is that American law makes it easier for our citizens to adopt from abroad than do the laws of EU countries. In the US, foreign adoptees are given a special visa status and may become naturalized citizens much more quickly than other immigrants. You talk about the fees adoption agencies charge as if thay are clearly excessive in all cases. Most American parents adopting internationally work with an adoption agency that is responsible for doing a "home study" on the parents. This means that the agency must assemble information on the prospective parents' physical, emotional, and financial fitness to be parents. This includes a social worker interviewing the parents and people who know them and visiting the home. The parents must submit financial and health records and even have their fingerprints screened by the FBI. This home study must be presented to the Immigration Service to get the child's visa and must be presented to a US court when the parents adopt the child. During the first months that the child is in the US, though the child lives with the adoptive parents, the agency is still the child's legal guardian. The agency also may incure costs in the home country of the child, for things like foster care, healt! h examinations, and required papers. These agencies are non-profit organizations and do not charge fees that are excessive. As you can see from the preceeding paragraph, even in situations where procedures are lax in the child's home country the US government (through the State Department and the INS) are looking out for the child's welfare. Furthermore, once a child arrives, the parents must go through a legal adoption process in a court of the state where they live and the court must determine again that the adoption is in the child's best interest. I'm sure you meant well, but please learn more before you speak with such certainty about this complex subject again.18 Mar 2007 19:41:53 GMT
I am in the middle of trying to adopt an Ethiopian boy who lived on the streets of Addis Ababa. He is 12 years old adn has various emotional and psychological issues. Yet he deserves a loving home every bit as much as those adopted by super stars such as Madonna and Angelina. He is not cute and innocent or a baby. He has issues and I would give anything to be able to make a 'slam dunk' like Madonna or Angelina - but for us mere mortals it is not that easy. I wish we could all save a child. It would make this world a better place. Visit Alex' web site to discover his story and why he needs to be helped escape the poverty and deadly streets of Ethiopia. http://alex-roadtofreedom.blogspot.com/
19 Mar 2007 15:14:06 GMT
The complexities and sensitivities around international adoption are not something we deal with every day, and I'm certainly not an expert on this subject. Cross race adoptions seem to be much more controversial, at least in Britain, where it is extremely hard for white prospective parents to adopt black children, for example. I didn't mean to imply I was taking sides on this debate, and I'm sorry, Sarah, if I've accidentally offended you or anyone else.
One of the reasons many British adoption agencies argue against mixed race adoption is that they believe there's a chance of children having psychological problems as a result of the identity issues thrown up by life in a society which is not as colourblind as their adoptive parents. This means that there are children growing up in the care of the British state, even while there are plenty of people who want to adopt. There have been calls for this to change, and some argue that it's a racist way of looking at things. The issue of money is a thorny one. I wasn't coming to any conclusions about it except that in some cases, in some countries, some unscrupulous people are profiting from international adoptions.19 Mar 2007 17:36:07 GMT
Ruth & all,
The US has also had issues with cross-race adoption. Mostly professionals run on the continuum of opinion from: unconcerned with race to thinking uniracial adoptions are better, if possible, but not mandatory. Recruitment of adoptive and foster parents of all races is generally supported. For many hard to place children, the issues are not race but age, behavior and medical issues. There are a few irresponsible clinicians (of various races) who support institutional care ahead of cross-race adoptions. They are, I suspect a small minority. Internationally, there are issues of corruption and payment in every country, including the US. There are reasons that shady adoption providers alight in certain states. Guatemala, to its credit, has a mandatory DNA test for US adoptive families. That alone make kidnapping and the worst-case stories of adoption far less likely there than most other locations. Are birth-mothers bribed or threatened? Probably (although I suspect more so the first.) Does this happen elsewhere? Most likely. Some US states allow pretty generous expenses for birth mothers. Generally, I suspect that any payments are not likely to convince a birth-mother to relinquish a child to adoption if they had no intention to do so. Many poor families raise children in Guatemala and throughout the world. I suspect that payment is more likely a means to convince a birth-mother to select one adoption provider over another. "Best interest of child" should be the sole guiding factor, but birth-mothers are human, and can probably be swayed, particularly if they have other children to care for. There are those who coyly suggest that best interest of child means keeping them in their culture of birth. The birth-mother is a product of this culture and knows the risks and benefits of staying, and her chances in attempting to raise this child. Rural Guatemala, and much of the world, has a high infant mortality rate. Outsiders, like UNICEF staff, live lives of far greater security and comfort than most of the world's poor, including obviously most Guatemalan birth-mothers. UNICEF are not helping birth-families by removing their ability to select adoption if they think it is the best option. Programs to materially assist the poor, and make it more likely for them to safely parent their children are wonderful. Regulations to improve adoption are also laudable. I've worked on both of these. To pretend that we should stop adoption, which will be unnecessary once we solve that pesky problem of world poverty is destructive. So are byzantine regulations designed to stop adoptions by choking them on paperwork and delays. These non-solutions are the refuge of bigots who seek to "assist" the unempowered poor by taking away their right to decide how best to ensure their child's survival. These celebrity adoptions portray all adoptions in an unfair light. Anybody with millions of dollars, regardless of fame, can pay to jump some bureaucratic hurdles. [P.S. I have nothing to do with Guatadopt (the link above), but it is a good site on the topic.]20 Mar 2007 10:20:10 GMT
"If a path to the better there be, it begins with a full look at the worst". Thomas Hardy
I am still grappling with Glendy's story in The Guardian's article. One aspect that I find disturbing is the rapid sequence of events that occured through the vulnerable phase after delivery of her baby.. ensuring the adoption would take place? She had second thoughts yet little time and space to re-evaluate a decision that was made before her baby's birth, gather her strength and support [if any], and assert herself. Adoptive parents who maintain a link to the birth mother when possible touched me as most loving and generous.15 Apr 2007 11:52:35 GMT
Madonna, Madonna, Madonna those will be the headlines for the next few days because MADONNA is returning to Malawi in what must be a photo op and an attempt to make up for the disastrous PR after she whisked away the Malawi orphan a couple of months ago. Yet again it highlights the fact that 'normal' people of which there are thousands across the world struggle every day with local, state and government officials to clear their adoptions. We finally secured the adoption papers for Alex Rod in Ethiopia and within the next two weeks will have the new birth certificate, identity card and passport. After which we will transition Alex into his new life. A long and drawn out transition, one that has to support his needs and his pace.
It is going to be a team process in which his new family is intimately involved at each step. No 'nanny', 'child minder' etc, but DIRECT contact with the child. I just hope and pray that Madonnas latest addition has the love and support of 'mom' and not just a limitless support staff! Visit Alex today and discover the true, heart warming story of faith and prayers. Read how this young Ethiopian street child is being rescued from a certain death on the streets of Addis Ababa. DISCOVER THE REAL LIFE STORY OF HOPE AND SUCCESS FOR ALEX Link to us today and follow the progress as Alex adjusts to the safe world in Europe where he will hopefully soon get a good education and health. http://alex-roadtofreedom22 May 2007 08:25:13 GMT
Ruth, I see your Blog has led to a lot of emotional mails. If you would like to know more about how countries are politically pressured to give children for adoption - even though they have with foreign assistance fully reformed their child protection, then you could visit my website, or read my book. It is about political intrigue, emotional adopters behind whom adoption agencies are hiding. www.romania-forexportonly.eu