Disclaimer: I have a lot of thoughts running through my head, and in an attempt to record them all, I’ve begun writing just to get them out on (cyber-)paper. In writing this post, I struggled with retorting my own arguments, and therefore I do realize the complexity of this topic despite how I may relating it, but its been a month of reading and formulating, and its time to start getting some of it out. 
A social worker friend who knows of my current struggle with the efficacy of adoption ethics recently introduced me to some wonderful conversations about this which are taking place on some forums of adoptive parents of Ethiopian children.
From what I’ve read and understand, it seems that many children in Ethiopia are placed for adoption due to poverty. Oftentimes adoptive parents are able to meet the birth/first family while completing the adoption trip in Ethiopia, and can experience the pauperism of the family for themselves. It would seem then, that many of the Ethiopian adoptions could be avoided and families preserved if they had some type of support, financial or otherwise. Perhaps it is for this reason many prospective parents are now inquire into the humanitarian aid efforts of different adoption agencies, and how or if they are working towards benefitting the families of Ethiopia; not merely the children living in orphanages. Their thoughtfulness does not stop at merely selecting an agency or deciding upon which non-profit aid organization to donate to in Ethiopia, but rather it is reflected in a plethora of discussions on their forums. Besides the basic conversations about raising these children, these families appear to also collectively question the motivations of relinquishing or abandoning a child, the role of adoption agencies, and possible solutions to the struggle to keep things ethical.
I find it curious, and indeed rather disturbing, that many families with children from China or in the process of adopting from China don’t seem to spend time tackling these issues, particularly in their online communities (the family mentioned in the last post was a rare, and appreciated, exception). Perhaps it’s the lack of information about or contact with the child’s birth/first family which allows families in the China program a way to not delve this deep into the issues of the ethics surrounding the adoption of their child(ren).However, it’s more likely the result of how these children come to be abandoned in the first place.
Most adoptive parents of Chinese children know of what the West refers to as the “One-Child Policy,” and have a basic knowledge of this Chinese governmental regulation. It seems as though this population control policy can make adoptive families of Chinese children feel as though their hands are washed clean of any of the ethical conundrums that can plague other programs such as Ethiopia. After all, it is the government’s fault these children are being abandoned, and there’s nothing any prospective adoptive parent could do to stop it because it is the country’s policy. There is no knowledge of the child’s history, birth/first family—nothing. These children are like little Asian blank-slates, and therefore the focus need not be expanded beyond the child since there is nothing else.
This would help explain why most of the non-profit, in-country initiatives supported by adoptive families of Chinese children are to aid orphans and not struggling agricultural families. Like the lens of a telescope, though these families have terrific focus, their aperture is narrow. Therefore, they do not see the wider issues surrounding these children on whom they are concentrated. But absence does not mean non-existence. The issue they overlook, is how even in China there are prospects for family preservation.
Researching the “One-Child Policy” will expose many articles about China’s rich breaching the regulations by having more than one child and paying the fines and fees associated with it, so much so that it’s beginning to be seen by some as an epidemic needing to be curtailed. This could lead one to assume that in fact there are many cases in China, as in Ethiopia, where money may successfully keep a family together, and thus begin questioning what can be done to allow families to successfully stay together in light of the governmental policies. Maybe it will through supporting better education in rural areas, or offering job resources for rural families, or providing better healthcare for villagers (in China the focus may need to be on curbing pregnancies rather than allowing families to keep many children).
I think the China adoption community is sadly deficient and lacking richness as a result of its ignorance to the issues of adoption efficacy and ethics. I also think the great debate around adoption ethics is at a loss without the China community in attendance. By merely focusing on teaching their children China’s traditional culture and the “One-Child Policy,” these families are doing a disservice to adopted Chinese children as well as to the future of adoptions everywhere by not addressing the ethics behind adoption. Since China has been one of the most popular countries to adopt from, the benefits the conversation about adoption ethics would gain from so much more attention, drive, and creativity as a result of the increase in participation would be astounding. I’ve seen first-hand results of the combined influence and voice the China adoption community can have, and let me say it is an awesome sight. The adoption community as a whole has come far since it began, but it is still in need of some fine tuning. Now is the time for the community to take the next step towards benefitting children worldwide by furthering the cause to make adoptions more just. After all, this issue doesn’t just affect some adoptions—it affects them all.
6 responses so far ↓
Mayhem // November 27, 2007 at 12:11 am
It is a complex topic, and I appreciate you taking it on.
Emma // November 27, 2007 at 9:40 am
I agree with Mayhem, it is a complex topic. To the point that I don’t think any of the issues can be solved by providing money to keep families together. There are deep traditions in China around families and much broader social issues than the population control strategies.
Female infanticide was common in rural China long before the one child policy. Mothers would willingly kill their infant daughters because they believed they were better off dead than growing up a female in China and having to endure what they did. It was an act of love long before it became known as an act of desperation.
While for some Chinese nationals poverty may be a contributing factor to abandoning their child, what I’ve come to understand is that there is more at stake than just financial repercussions. Social stigma associated with ‘letting down the mother land’ by having more children and contributing to the problem rather than being part of the solution is rife.
Slowly - and certainly increasingly in the cities - we are seeing changes in thinking and a move to greater acceptance of daughters. The govt is working hard on this as they are seeing the discrepancy in the male/female birth ratio and the broader implications and repercussions for generations to come.
I doubt throwing money at this problem would solve anything much. Massive cultural change is required to see a decrease in abandoned baby girls and therefore international adoption of them.
I’m not sure I could ever be comfortable adopting a child who was relinquished due only to poverty. Kudos to the families working toward addressing some of these issues (eg in Ethiopia), resulting in families staying together and children staying in their birth country and culture.
I’m certainly open to any discussion around adoption ethics relating to China, I just don’t believe a solution is quite as simple as it may be for other countries where poverty is the main factor of relinquishment.
colleen // November 27, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Have you read research_china.org? It is very informative. There is a recent series of articles on some of the statistics of abandonment, along with an article several years ago about the role parental grandparents play in coercing women into giving up healthy girls.
I don’t know if you are aware that rural families are already allowed to have 2 children. And minority groups can have as many children as they want. Alot of abandon babies in rural areas are believed to be the 2nd girl in the family and the parents want to try again for a boy. Money is not going to allow them to keep the second child since it will not solve the problems of wanting/needing the boy to take care of the parents in their old age.
China is changing in many ways from within as the decrease in abandon healthy girls testifies (wait times up to 3 years). This is due in part to increase in domestic adoptions, governmental advertisements for the worth of girls and unfortunately, backalley ultrasound machines that allow for sex selections.
Your comment of birth control education seems simplistic since VERY few abandoned babies are from unwanted pregnancies. In fact, the birth rate is dropping to such a degree that they estimate that in 2040 it will be in the negatives. Also the size of China makes giving money very problematic. The population is 4x the size of America and abandonment is a very, very small percentage of births.
In saying all that, I will say that from reading some of those who work within China, one of the areas that could actually be helped to decrease abandonment would be northern China where the abandonment of special needs babies is highest because of poor maternal nutrition. Getting the proper nutrition to those areas would decrease the birth defect rates and thereby decrease abandonment. Again, though percentages of birth defect rates and abandonment are very small.
colleen // November 27, 2007 at 6:29 pm
P.S. I just now checked your “about me” page. Oops. I guess you probably know more about China than most, especially me. I will say that I am hopeful that with the slow down in China it means that China is finally fixing its own problems after years of ignoring the problems.
CJsDaddy // November 29, 2007 at 4:06 am
Colleen, I found your comments very informative - relinquishment is indeed a complicated discussion no matter what country we’re talking about.
As far as the concept of “giving back” to the country from which we adopt, this is also a big deal among those of us who adopt from Guatemala. In fact, I know quite a few parents of Guatemalan born kids who actually decided to adopt from there AFTER doing some kind of mission work there.
I believe one big reason this is less common in China and perhaps Vietnam are because of the lack of opportunity. The government there is seen as controlling everything, so I don’t believe the concept of working or contributing to better the lives of the Chinese is feasible - at least in the eyes of most. The government controls most of the areas where typical charity/NGO/mission work might take place - schools, hospitals, orphanages, etc.
The converse is true in Ethiopia and Guatemala. Those governments provide very little in the way of basic services, let alone education, housing, and medical.
Without making this too long, I should also mention that adoptive parents generally separate their adoption from any humanitarian efforts. It’s kindof a fine line, but for a lot of people, charity giving/work is an extremely private thing, so there might be more going on that you realize.
Jae Ran // January 17, 2008 at 2:46 am
This has nothing to do with this particular post per se, but I just wanted to comment and say that I’ve been reading all your archived posts. I’m excited to find someone who works in the adoption field/industry/whatever people call it these days, who is rising to the challenge of looking at the complexity of international adoption.
I work in domestic foster care adoptions and am an adult Korean adoptee and there is not a single day in which I do not feel the push-pull conflict of the work that I do, negotiating the ethical desires to advocate on behalf of children.
Your blog is interesting and I’m really glad to find it.
Leave a Comment