I Am Anti-Orphan

I’ve been actively involved in adoption reform and ethics for over a decade. I stopped counting the number of times I’ve been accused of being “anti-adoption”. This is a term, like others of it’s kind (anti-American, anti-Woman, anti-Life, anti-Choice, anti-Environment, etc), that is meant to be so emotionally divisive as to immediately shut down the stance and arguments of the opposition. Those accused of being part of the “anti” are too socially risky to hear out, too extreme to be offered a seat at the table or a respected voice. Often, there’s no evidence requested or offered for proof of such extreme labels.

The “anti” accusation is especially powerful when referring to a subject matter that is already fraught with emotion. Adoption sure fits that bill. While there are people, mostly adult adoptees who have lived not so positive adoption experiences first hand and do believe in the absolute abolition of adoption, no one I know who works for ethical adoption reform is anti-Adoption.

During a crisis in adoption, it is very difficult to see the larger picture. The faces and names representing these crisis scenarios make it feel personal, relateable. Over the years, I’ve heard every horror story and they have all pulled on my heart strings. I’ve wanted to save every family from pain, every child from tragedy and every birth mom from corruption. But these stories aren’t as individual as the emotional press coverage makes them out to be. They are but a symptom of a much larger and broader issue that needs addressing. As reformers, we have to look at the larger picture and advocate from that viewpoint. We have to understand how the actions today will impact adoptions in a year or ten. We don’t just want to find a solution to this crisis – we want to figure out the cause so as to prevent future crises! We have to function from the position that the needs of the many (ethical adoptions for years to come) outweigh the needs of the few (an adoption entangled in greater efforts to reform). Sometimes that creates a painful situation in the short term when hopeful future parents’ adoptions are delayed or even halted due to questionable ethics. The long term, though, is that parents in the future will not raise children who will question their histories, families will not lose children to adoption who did not intent to relinquish those children and adoptive families will be more educated, prepared and capable of facing the unique challenges that come with adoptive parenting so post-adoptive abuse and “rehoming” will be drastically reduced or eliminated. These are all such positive things for all members of the adoption triad! Yet those advocating for those things, from the small blogger to the government officials, are quickly first in line to receive the anti-Adoption label.

If it’s not true, why would this label be used? The dark side of adoption involves a profit motive. Fewer adoptions done more ethically absolutely cut directly into that profit motive. More regulation, requirements for education and post-adoptive oversight means less chance to loophole or find shortcuts, also impacting the profit motive. A job well done is not always an easy or profitable one. It may even mean fewer adoption agencies as adoption becomes necessary business rather than big business.

You know who doesn’t have a profit motive? Me! I’ve never received and never will receive a single penny for my work. You know who else doesn’t have a profit motive? The US government. The small number of workers responsible for running and overseeing the Office of Children’s Issues do not have salaries commiserate on the number of adoptions that are completed (or not). They do not get bonuses if they can develop (or eliminate) more regulations. They, like us and other advocacy groups, do not have marketing strategies (or budgets) to sell manipulative stories to major news outlets branding others as “anti” – without a shred of evidence or even examples to back up these claims – in order to further push our profit-driven business model.

I am not anti-adoption.

I am anti-orphan.

I will use the language the extremists like most. Like anyone I’ve ever met, my heart breaks at the thought of any child of any age in any part of the world growing up in an orphanage. Institutionalized care is no substitution for a loving and nurturing family. Every child in this world deserves a loving and nurturing family and I will continue my efforts to see that this happens as long as necessary.

Working to find solutions for children without families is a complex and multi-faceted problem. Adoption is, quite frankly, the easy solution. It makes us feel good as a society and there are of course personal payoffs for families who wish to grow their families in this way. I am one of those families and I’m so grateful that adoption was an option to bring my daughter into our family. But I’m also forced to look at the overarching issue: how and why are children ending up institutionalized and without families to begin with? We know that medical (physical or mental) needs (of other family members or of the child) sometimes are the reason. We know poverty (and its cousin, lack of education) is sometimes the reason. We know lack of community resources or support for domestic adoption is sometimes the reason and often the cause for the need for international adoption, specifically.

So if you, like me, are anti-orphan you have to take a step back and look at the big picture with me. Reforming social structures, healthcare availability, educational opportunities and views on domestic adoption to keep children within their cultural communities are the surest way to reduce the orphan population worldwide. There will always be a need for adoption, even if we found solutions to ALL of these challenges. And we want adopted children to remain with their adopted families by ensuring proper education and support. This requires regulation. Children are not a commodity to be traded. They are not a means by which to profit. And if we find a child who could benefit from adoption, we should do all we can as a nation to regulate the actors who facilitate that adoption in the best interest of the child’s short AND long term welfare.

We have not always been as regulated as we are now. And agencies and adoption growth advocates are using the word regulation as if it’s dirty. But a quick glance back in history to the 70’s and 80’s and even more recently demonstrates that this lack of regulation can have very long term and very serious impact on adoptees. Currently there are a number of adult adoptees who have no citizenship due to this lack of regulation. They’ve been in the US since infancy with their adoptive families. Suddenly they face immigration concerns their families never saw coming. Regulation, when done well, paves the paths for an easier and better long term future for adoptees. We should scrutinize and be vocal and challenge areas of regulation we don’t understand or that are not clear or that we don’t think will serve adopted children. But we should not consider regulation, when it pertains to child adoption, to be a dirty word. It’s part of a broader solution to eliminating orphans, worldwide.

I am anti-orphan, not anti-adoption. And I won’t let myself or others who are fighting the good fight to continue making true solutions available to reduce the orphan numbers worldwide be taken down by those slinging about unsubstantiated claims while collecting salaries reliant on an increase in the number of international adoptions.