What is ethical to you? Of course there are some behaviors that are clearly unethical just due to the high level of criminality involved: human trafficking and baby-buying are clearly unethical. You won’t find many people who will argue in favor of these illegal activities.
But beyond that, the definition begins to blur. It is this exact blurring of ethics that allows parents to rationalize and justify questionable agency, facilitator or orphanage directors. It is this blurring that is the catalyst for “post-adoption amnesia where questionable actions in Vietnam are suddenly cast aside and forgotten about once families arrive home with their new bundles. Open conversations about ethical standards are an important first step toward ethical adoptions.
The first in a series of ethical questions I hope to pose to our readers for discussion is this one: When an agency has standards for its applicants that are higher than the country from which the applicants have chosen to adopt, does this increase or decrease the integrity of the agency?
Consider these scenarios:
- A single woman in her 60’s feels the call to adopt. She is only interested in adopting a baby girl as young as possible in perfect health (as best can be obtained) in order to minimize possibilities of emotional problems, attachment issues and health problems.
- A young couple fall in love and marry. They are only 22, they have only been married for six months but they are anxious to start their family through adoption.
- A gay man wishes to adopt a child. He has no partner, currently, but has had plans to be a father for many years. He is in a great spot financially and is ready to do this.
- A family decides to expand through adoption. They plan to add several children to their home but funds are tight. They hope to adopt 2 or more unrelated children at once in order to save the large expense of repeat travel.
- A family has been on the wait list to adopt in China for a long time. They finally decide to concurrently adopt in Vietnam. They know it is likely that both of their children will arrive home pretty close together but feel prepared for it.
- A family wishes to adopt. During their homestudy it is revealed that the family practices spanking as a primary and routine form of disciplining the children already in the home. They are open that they have no desire to change this practice because it is reflected in their religion and has also been successful for them so far.
- God has called a family that already has 8 children to expand through adoption once again. Their home is small ”“ 3 bedrooms ”“ and the family doesn’t have much money but through garage sales, church donations and prayer they have faith it will all work out.
Each one of these issues may be of questionable ethics. I am sure for each scenario an argument could be made for or against these adoptions being in the best interest of the child. I know where I stand on each one of these issues and I bet you do, too. In fact, it is likely that your reaction to that list of scenarios may be that one or two of them are awful scenarios for a child to be adopted into, while the rest are ok. I know I feel that way and I bet my own list would look different than someone else’s. See what I mean about the blurry line of ethics?
I also know where a lot of agencies stand on these issues. I know agencies that have denied applicants for every single one of the situations above and I know of other agencies that put additional restrictions in place for single parents. I also know of agencies that will allow absolutely anyone to adopt, under any of the above scenarios. I know of agencies that have never turned down an applicant for any reason.
Vietnam is extremely lax when it comes to the standards adoptive families must meet in order to be allowed to adopt. Each one of the above scenarios would be allowable by Vietnam. These low standards make adoption from Vietnam a very appealing program for those who have been exempt from other country programs.
So back to the question at hand: what about these agencies ”“ both the homestudy agencies and the adoption agencies ”“ who make their own higher standards?
- Is it unethical for an agency to impose its own standards above and beyond those required by a country?
- Is an agency a more appropriate judge of what constitutes a family worthy of raising a Vietnamese child than the entire country of Vietnam is?
- Whose ethical standards should trump the other? The higher standard? Or the country program’s standards?
- Is it acting with integrity for an agency to accept any applicant into their program so long as they acquire a favorable homestudy?
- Does it give you pause about an agency’s integrity if they will allow absolutely anyone to adopt under any circumstances? Does it make you wonder if the agency is driven by money and not the best interest of the child?
- If an agency imposes its own higher standard, does this seem unnecessarily restrictive considering both the birth country and the homestudy would approve a lower standard?
- Does an agency have a right to maintain a higher standard for the sake of the children? Do they have an obligation to do so?
- Is it ok to limit some scenarios and not others? Is it an all or nothing proposition?
- Are there some situations that Americans can agree are not in the best interest of the child, regardless of the standards set by Vietnam or an individual homestudy agency?
What’s your feeling on this issue? Can we bring that blurry line into focus at all?
11 Responses
I have to think on all of this as you are right, there are some very fine lines in your scenarios. Here’s the first impression, though, for what it is worth.
Ultimately the rules of the child’s country MUST be followed. If not, you quickly risk to entire process being terminated or severly restricted like we have seen in China. Then, in my opinion, it is perfectly acceptable and even preferable that an agency would set some standards as well. Ultimately they are responsible to that country for the children they place into families. It’s rough to hear that this agency won’t work with over 60, or over 8 in a household, etc. when you know people that are raising amazing children quite successfully outside of those parameters, but you have to respect the position the agency is in. Their continued good name with the placing country is at stake. It might be self-preserving to do so, but without preserving that good name with the country they do not place children. This can stem from good business sense or the desire to build families (hard to figure on the PAP end which reasoning.) While some bristle at the thought of an agency having good business sense, it does not bother me. They are a business, they have paid employees and are therefor responsible to the families on their payroll. I do feel that there should be a balance between the two…”in business to be able to place children” not “in business just to make money.” If you really believe in what you are doing, you are more likely to do it right. Setting “higher” standards than that of the country, in my opinion, is their right. There is also the possibility that an agency is setting additional standards to help control their waiting list. I’m not sure I agree with this. If you list gets too long just stop taking applications, don’t impose standards that you do not really believe in.
One other thing that I KNOW you will find is that there is very little you will find all American’s agreeing on. Our country carries a very wide spectrum. We’ve all seen the hurt caused to children by abuse, family seperations, and death. However agreeing that being spanked, being raised by a single parent (gay or straight), a bad family seperation, or the negatve impact of an older parent’s are either good or bad will never be agreed upon. These all bring up very strong feelings, most of them deeply rooted into our core of who we are. I know I hold strongly to the ones I believe in, and I have let go of some that I once held…but it wasn’t easy! Time and experience is worth much, lofty ideals worth little.
How’s that for a first impression, I’ll write a disortation for the meat of it all and a short essay for the final thoughts! I do must want to add, that I am not personally saying that anything I wrote as an example is right or wrong, however Iwill say that I have seen many examples with my own eyes how some of it works and some doesn’t. Even down to spanking. There are some children that should never, under any circumstances be spanked. Aside from that it is a fine line between correction and abuse (the same with verbal discipline.) I’d hate for anyone to read all that and think that I feel only young parent’s with a couple kids or less who do not spank and will never ever split for any reason should be adoption. That is certainly not my thoughts on the matter.
This is an interesting question poised. Having been around adoptions for many years as well as having adopted 3 on my own as a single parent, I am used to certain restrictions. I do have one quible with the text of the question and that deals with the first situation listed. Why would it matter if the 60 year old was a single person or a couple both in their sixties. Same situation applies. I actually believe that the homestudy process if done correctly should eliminate many of these scenarios. But we all know that some social workers don’t do as good a job at weeding out or placing age restrictions, etc on their approvals.
When I was looking to adopt my third daughter from Vietnam (my first 2 are from China) it was before any of the agencies had actually receive their licenses. I had been researching CHI and really liked them, but they had a restriction about placing children with single parents that already had 2 children in the home. I spoke at length with the person that ran the program at CHI and ultimately sent them a letter out lining why I thought I good be a good parent to a third child. It was a fairly lengthy letter that outlined my financial situation, my extensive support network, my strong family connection and the length and stability of my employment history. You know what, they approved me to adopt an infant from Vietnam.
So not all of the rules are necessarily written in stone and if you can make a reasonable argument as to why they should consider you, maybe they will. Now all of this happened before CHI was licensed and long before they had a 2+ year wait list.
Wow, this is a lot of food for thought!
I’m feeling conflicted. In a way I think it’s perfectly OK for agencies to have their own set of strict standards even although it goes against my own live and let live beliefs. Personally, I think if people are able to get an approved homestudy showing they are mentally, physically and financially fit to raise a child then I think their personal lives (married/single, straight/gay, young/old, religous/non-religious, etc.) shouldn’t matter in the least.
I would think some agencies impose limitations to keep the number of families in their program small, and thus keep the wait time shorter. (Which makes sense to me, but if numbers are all they are thinking of then it would be much more fair to just put a limit to the number of applications they accept and ease up on their family restrictions.) However, I do think some agencies may impose limits simply from their own moral standpoints. I won’t go into my feelings on this scenario…I could write a book on the “holier than thou” crowd.
Do you think perhaps the Vietnam government is somehow keeping track of the types of families (and their income, careers, etc) that each agency is bringing in? Or maybe agencies are worried that if they send too many “non-traditional” families that the VN government may take notice and give the agency problems? I really haven’t thought of this until just now, so it’s just thought…
See? Give me too much to think about and I ramble on and on. 🙂
I never really understood an agency’s right to impart their own “rules.” Before I even decided to adopt my assumption was that there are separate country limitations and separate limitations from our own country. I had no clue an agency could have their own pertaining to who they would accept into the program.
There are some that I know I feel have no bearing on the ability to provide a stable and loving home to a child and so shouldn’t be a limitation on anyone’s list. Things like sexual orientation and being single (the things I see most often denied besides age) are not things that in and of itself will provide an unstable home. They may present challenges, but, so does adopting a child of another race. I wonder how different our opinions would be on what it is exactly that should be required.
I don’t think an agency’s preference should trump country requirements. My problem with it is that there is too much room for discrimination that isn’t based on being a good parent and having a stable home life. Would it be best, perhaps, to have a national set of requirements that agencies follow along with the set of individual country requirements?
There are so many thoughts running through my head but one thing I want to say in response to Rachel’s comment (Hi Rachel!) –
An approved homestudy does not equal a good parent OR a parent who qualifies under all the rules. When we were looking into adoption from China, I brought up my concern about my checkered past (a college Minor in Possession of Alcohol conviction). I was told by a very large, very well-known China-only adoption agency that I would need to find a social worker to write our homestudy and leave that information out, since it might be a problem for China. They were perfectly willing to give us a child, as long as we could find a social worker to lie for us. It didn’t sound as if this was an uncommon occurrence and I can’t believe it only happens for people adopting from China. The agency we went through for our Vietnam adoption required a statement from me regarding the arrest and the consequences of that event – plus police and court records – NOT for Vietnam but for their own consideration before they accepted us.
Personally I regard agencies with higher standards as more ethical, not less. To me that shows they are willing to sacrifice a few possible clients (and their money) in order to do what they believe is best for the children. We may not always agree with an agency’s standards, but with over 40 agencies working in Vietnam, there are plenty of others to choose from. I have seen first hand what happens when an agency will take any family regardless of their background and refer them any child(ren) regardless of how prepared the family might be to parent them … hearbreak, frustration, and too often, disruptions. Yes it is certainly possible to do a good job of parenting regardless of your personal status (age, marital status, number of kids, etc) but some agencies believe it’s not good to play the odds when you are dealing with a vulnerable child who has already had to deal with too much heartbreak and tragedy in their young lives – I might not always agree with the regs, but I support agencies that are trying their best to protect the kids.
I don’t usually speak up about things like this, mainly because I believe that the constant arguing/flaming that goes on in the world of Vietnamese adoption (and all international adoption, I’m told) is beyond ridiculous. I think we are supposed to be supporting each other, not tearing each other down.
But on this issue, I have to voice my opinion… mainly because it’s different from pretty much everyone else’s.
I am sick to death of all that’s required of me as an adoptive parent. I have to invite a stranger into my home, answer personal questions, submit to background investigations of every kind, give up my medical history and trot out my financial statements. In the meantime, Ms. Smith around the corner is having her grandmother look after her bio kids while she’s in jail.
Look, I know that children need to be protected. I am well aware of that. Criminal background checks are necessary. And I also understand the argument that a person must be financially qualified to adopt so that the child does not end up being supported by our government (however anyone who can afford international adoption is highly unlikely to fall into this category). But this stuff about whether or not I am single, gay or intend to spank is completely irrelevant. Spanking is legal in this country for bio parents, regardless of what you, I or anyone else think of it. So you know what? It should be allowed for adoptive parents too. I am just as much a parent as any bio parent, and I have just as much right to make choices about my own child.
I accept the restrictions of other countries because I respect that those countries have the right to decide their own qualifications. The United States has qualifications too and although I don’t agree with them, I recognize that this is the way the process works. However, an agency does not have the right or responsibility to add its own additional qualifications. Can an agency deny someone’s application because they are black? Because they are disabled? These additional rules are discrimination, pure and simple. And I’m willing to bet that many, many excellent and loving homes were rejected this way.
Here’s where my thinking lies, and it is somewhat in line with Jennifer’s thinking (although I do have to add a note that I’m really against spanking, especially in the case of an adopted child). Part of these higher standards are more or less discriminatory. I understand the need to have parents who can provide an emotionally and mentally stable home along with any other needs an adopted child may have – I do understand that it may be greater than the needs of a child that is biological and was never institutionalized or taken away from their birth family and country. The thing is that they don’t seem to be based in that. They seem to lie in age, marital status, and sexual orientation, number of children. . .
I guess my big question would be: Why would imposing these standards make an agency more ethical? How is this directly related to what is best for an adopted child? What standards are most important for the needs of an adopted child?
And I’m a little worried about the idea that there are plenty of other agencies to choose from. – Not to single you out Christina, even though I am with this part, – but if an agency that imposes these standards makes them more ethical, then does it push PAPs that don’t fit into these standards to potentially choose a less ethical agency? I realize it’s not as black and white as this, but I was going with the premise that higher standards equals ethical. And if you take out the agencies that are ethical with a higher standard, there are much less ethical agencies to choose from.
First of all, I love this site and wish it was available when we were choosing our agency back when we adopted our son. I normally agree with what you write, but I have to say I don’t think I do on this post (although you didn’t come right out and say which you thought were unethical, but you thought some were or you wouldn’t have written the post:). I think it would be unethical for an agency to lie or twist the truth so someone could adopt when they obviously would not meet the criteria. But I don’t think it is unethical for an agency to put more restrictions on the program than Vietnam has placed. Although the statement about how can an agency know what’s better for PAPs raising Vietnamese children than Vietnam itself does make me think a bit more than I would have normally. I guess what I really wanted to say about all of your scenerio’s was even though I may not agree with all of them, who are we to judge on who will make a good parent? That’s what the social workers are for and if they look into someone’s life and deem them fit parents then they certainly have more information about that persons life than we do looking at it from the outside. Do I personally think a person with 8 kids and 3 bedrooms should be adopting….no, but then what if you asked the child who is adopted. Which do you think they would prefer, a life in an orphanage or a family with too few bedrooms? When I think about my children living their lives in an orphanage it just breaks my heart and I think of all the children left to that life. I think our son’s orphanage was a good one, they seemed to really love the children, but do I think that is the same as having a family…of course not. I guess that’s just what I wanted to say, a gay father is better than the alternative IMO. Now, if you said someone who had gotten out of prison for murder or a child molester who was “reformed” or something like that, then no I would not agree with that. I would hate to think of a child going from an orphange into an abusive home, that to me is just so sad….but there are lots of grandparents out there raising wonderful healthy well adjusted children right now so there is no reason to think a 60 year old woman could not also do the same
I really do love this site and think you are doing so much for the adoption community…so thank you.
All good questions. Personally, I sometimes find the ways agencies limit their applicants to be quite offensive. I won’t work, for example, with agencies that will only accept Christian parents, even though I am one and would qualify. And it also bugs me that agencies don’t take single people when the placing country doesn’t mind. I DO think agencies should be pressed to make clear to PAPs that these are the agency requirements, not the country requirements. But apart from that, I can’t say I think of this as an “ethical” concern in the same way other issues are. In some part that’s because this is transparent: you know exactly what their stance is, and can take it or leave it. That’s not the case with many of the other unethical practices that go on in Vietnam, many of which are hidden. I would agree that the sleaziness enters the equation when you look at why agencies do some of these things. It seems to me exactly like the fertility clinics who won’t take clients whose FSH levels are too high. Why? Because they are riskier bets, and bring down the published success rates, and the clinic looks bad, even if in fact they have provided excellent medical care. Adoption agencies care about the profiles of the PAPs they present to foreign officials and the repuation it gives them with the placing country. They want to put forward age-appropriate, wealthy, professional couples, or as many as they can. They’d rather bury the less “desirable” folks (like a single person like me) in the mix, and be known for putting forward quality folk. I was quite seriously told this by one person connected to several agencies. Mind you, I think this decision-making is done in the rough, and nobody is spending a lot of time on it, but it happens. Hence some agencies choosing to limit their applicants altogether. In the end, though, I would prefer an agency that has a blanket exclusion up front to one that takes you, but doesn’t work so hard on your behalf.
Great comments! This really makes me think. On the one hand, I do think that agencies and social workers are charged with the task of finding “qualified” parents (whatever that means). So any criminal background, and maybe even our discipline plans are fair game. But when it comes to marital status, age, sexual orientation or religion, I would say it is discriminatory for agencies to impose standards the country doesn’t. Sure, you can go to another agency, but what if that’s not an option someday? Maybe agencies say they are limiting who can adopt in the best interest of the child but it sounds too much like “good business” to me (in the best interest of wait times). Like I said, it’s hard because they are charged with “checking you out” to see if you’re fit to be a parent, but it really is getting crazy when they can demand all kinds of things from you that biological parents never have to answer for (how many bedrooms? I slept in a dresser drawer in my parents’ bedroom the first year of my life!)