This week the Department of State put out the following question on their blog:
How can the international community best ensure that adoptions are transparent, and that the rights of adopted children, birth families, and adoptive families are protected?
It is good to see the Department of State is looking for input, though the assurances being looked for can only be appreciated when realizing adoption is a business and has been around for more than 100 years.
In 1881, thirty years after the first modern adoption act, several syndicated news papers ran a story about baby brokering in New York City. The article contained a striking phrase: "generally the demand is rather in excess of the supply, and hence the chances of profit are fairly good".
An incredibly important Supreme Court decision has come out of India on Monday!
I have no real time to write about it all at the moment, so instead, I'm going to pull a variety of quotes out of some of the articles from the past day or so to lay out the outlines of what has just taken place.
The ruling comes in a case brought by Arun Dohle of Against Child Trafficking or ACT (which has long been listed in my links list. They have been doing critically important human rights work for both adopted people and their families.)
Please note that while the news reports are dismissive of Dohle's "lineage plea," what the court actually ruled was that he would still be able to file a suit for seeking relief.
Certainly not a full victory by any means, ( at least not yet,) but when it comes to establishing the absolute right of Indian adoptees to their documentation, the high court finally gave over full access, rebuffing arguments by the agency/NGO claiming adoptees have no right to such or that their files should be covered by "confidentiality"or "mother's privacy."
In March of 2004, a mysterious slowdown began in Nepali adoptions. Few (if any) placement agencies were upfront about what was going on. Most spun one lie after another.
In fact, on March 8th, 2004, Taja Khabar published "Victims of Balmandir," and Nepali adoptions slowed to a crawl. The article alleged child trafficking at Nepal Children's Organization (NCO/Bal Mandir) and described a reputed adoption without consent to the United States.
Here is an English translation (name of adoptive child removed):
In 2001 Romania placed a ban on Inter Country adoptions of its children after massive corruption was discovered within these kinds of adoptions. Ever since the ban came into place the Country has been unjustly pressurized by the leading Countries involved in Inter- Country Adoptions. France, Italy, Spain, Israel and the US and UK have all lobbied to get this ban lifted. The politicians in these Countries involved have interests in adoption agencies and in many cases adoptive parents too.
It seems from now on, those criticizing the adoption industry need to embrace the phrasology used by those adoption advocates who prefer to use Positive Adoption Language when they write/speak. Away with child trafficking or illegal adoptions... they look very bad and are not the sort of phrases AP's will want to use.
For almost 20 years the large concerns interested in International adoptions, their foreign supporters and followers along with many Agencies and NGOs that worked in inter country adoptions before the Romanian ban on such adoptions have constantly denied the public Worldwide the truth of what happened to the thousands Romanian children adopted and exported abroad between 1991 and 1997.
Yesterday we learned an upcoming article of Elizabeth Bartholet is quoting a post made on Pound Pup Legacy, so we got curious about what she had to say. It turned out we had already read the article in an earlier draft, which at the time not yet contained a reference to our website.
On the one hand we am glad we are being noticed, on the other hand the article again pointed out to us the ivory tower from which Ms. Bartholet operates.
The article is called International adoption: The human rights position and is a 39 page long plea for the expansion of inter-country adoption. The most remarkable section of the article is called: Why the International Adoption Critics are Wrong, of which especially the subsection Adoption Abuses Don’t Justify Limiting International Adoption is especially mind boggling naive and devoid of any realization what inter-country adoption is like outside the legal frame work.
Despite the fact the Hague Treaty on Inter country adoption which China ratified prohibits all forma of payment to biological parents it is clear that children are being trafficked for adoption from within the Country for huge sums of money, thus again the Hague treaty is proven not again to protect children in difficulty.