The Office of Children’s Issues released their 2017 Annual Report on Intercountry Adoption this week and though the total number of adoptions is down slightly from last year, in general there are a number of positive indicators.
Not only was there an increase in the numbers of adoptions from 42 countries of origin, but a dozen countries on four continents saw double digit increases, including Nigeria, Colombia, India, and Sierra Leone. In addition, the Department reported that they saw the first intercountry adoptions in a year or more from nine countries, including Yemen, Zimbabwe, and Laos.
In addition, Children’s Issues reports that they “engaged with countries that had suspended intercountry adoption… to resolve hundreds of cases, and encouraged other countries to begin or resume intercountry adoptions to the United States.”
One barrier to sending countries that was addressed this year was post placement and post-adoption reporting. Having been told by a number of foreign officials that missing reports “cause policy makers to be concerned about the welfare and whereabouts of children … thus risk undermining intercountry adoptions in those countries” the State Department made a concentrated effort in 2017 to bring agencies and families into compliance. This push resulted in “scores of overdue post-adoption reports” being sent in which has already shown positive results. “This encouraged Peru to lift a temporary suspension… and conversations continue with Kazakhstan and Guatemala about the resumption of intercountry adoption.”
Much of the decrease in this year’s numbers was due to changes that China recently made to domestic laws related to the governance of NGO’s. While these laws were not written with intercountry adoption in mind, the result has been a “detrimental impact on the partnerships between U.S. adoption service providers and specific provinces that were designed to improve opportunities for children with special needs.” The State Department notes that they are actively working on the issue with China.
The reason China’s NGO law had such an impact is because 98% of adoptions from China now involve children with special needs. This is indicative of overall trends seen in adoptions, both in the US and worldwide. According to the report, “most children are older, or part of sibling groups, and the vast majority of them have special needs.” Which is actually another piece of good news because it means that far fewer healthy babies are being relinquished. It is part of the “positive changes” the Department is seeing “as some countries begin to reduce stigmas associated with unwed mothers, promote domestic adoption, and strengthen measures to prevent illicit practices.” In other words, children are being protected and families preserved – exactly what adoption agencies and advocates have been hoping to see happen for decades!
Two significant barriers to intercountry adoptions still exist. The first is what the State Department calls “Unregulated Custody Transfer” but is better known as “rehoming.” The report notes that rehoming is “a dangerous practice that places vulnerable children at risk and raises concern from countries of origin about whether adopted children are safe in the United States.” An interagency working group isfocusing on this issue and looking for solutions including “improving pre-adoption training and access to post-adoption services for intercountry adoption families.”
The second barrier, as noted in the 2016 report, is “other countries’ concerns about the actions of some U.S. adoption service providers and their foreign representatives.” The Department hopes that increased “enforcement of requirements to supervise foreign providers” by new Accrediting Entity, IAAME, will “contribute substantially to greater trust and confidence in U.S. providers on the part of officials in countries of origin.” Given the recent very public uproar by the National Council For Adoption and many of the agencies it represents, it remains to be seen whether the changes will have their intended effect.
Read the full report, including breakdowns by country numbers and fees, here.
4 Responses
I read with amusement the “2017 adoption report’s good news.” Maybe you could re-write the article with hard numbers and without the smoke and fog. “The total number of adoptions are down slightly” actually translates to an additional 12% again. “A dozen countries saw double digit increases” actually translates to how many total adoptions- several dozen? “Scores” of over-due post-adoption reports actually translates to how many- several dozen? “Conversations” with Guatemala translates to what- more condescending, embarrassing rhetoric by the State Department? “Far fewer healthy babies being relinquished” is not a factual statement. What are your sources for that particular gem? The only sentence I really appreciated was the last- the admission that the National Council is getting the facts out. I do not understand your thought process here. Either you live in a State Department bubble oblivious to the realities of the world, or you are downright cruel toward vulnerable children.
Kevin, I do not live in any bubble. I quoted directly from the report. I have gone back and added the link, my apologies for overlooking that yesterday. You can click through and read the numbers for yourself. Yes in many cases the number of adoptions in a specific country is small. What is significant is that a country is willing to allow any children to be adopted as well as the fact that the State Department is making efforts to open doors and keep those doors open. The reality is that many countries are doing more to care for their children and domestic adoptions are on the rise. Therefore, there are fewer young healthy children in need of adoption by American families. I am not sure how stating such a fact makes me “cruel”?
Thank you for this! Very enlightening.
The only thing is I’d caution not to assume that the lower number of non-special needs intercountry adoptions is due to “fewer healthy babies…being relinquished”. It could be that healthy babies are still being relinquished, but just aren’t available for ICA, perhaps because they are finding families in their countries of origin. (I think it’s likely that this is especially true in China.)
Very good point Sarah. You are right and it’s wrong for me to discount the impact that domestic adoptions may be making in some countries. Thanks so much for commenting!