Children for sale? The blurred boundary between intercountry adoption and sale of children in the United States

Abstract

Purpose – Intercountry adoptions (hereafter ICAs) in the USA are a form of sale of children. According to international policy, sale of children is an illicit social practice that involves improper financial gains by at least one party. Sale of children is a threat to legitimate ICA. The purpose of this paper is to analyse the policy and practice of ICAs in the USA, including pricing arrangements, demonstrate that US ICAs, which can have humanitarian aims and be legitimate forms of family development, comprise sale of children. Design/methodology/approach – Internet searches and e-mail inquiries were used to obtain ICA cost data for a randomised sample of 10 per cent of the agencies in the USA that facilitate ICAs. Findings – Cost information was obtained from only 25 per cent of the sample, suggesting lack of transparency in and available information about monetary costs of US ICAs. A range of US$12,000 to $40,000 suggests that US ICAs are expensive and costs vary. Large, undisclosed fees in the form of “required donations”, agency fees, and extensive foreign travel requirements imply third party economic gains are made through US ICA transactions. Practical implications – US ICA agencies should disclose costs and employ transparent practices. US policies regulating ICAs should be clarified and strengthened. The US Government should ratify, implement, and enforce major children’s rights international policy standards. Social implications – International demand for adopted children may encourage child trafficking, child laundering, and kidnapping for profit (see Smolin, 2005), putting children, adoptive families, and birth communities at risk of breaches of basic human rights. Originality/value – No study has offered systematic analysis of monetary costs of US ICAs and linked this analysis to policy and legitimacy of social practices.

China: US intercountry adoption: a quantitative grounded theory study

“…Ethical objections have been raised on the grounds of possible human rights concerns where the power relations are unequal (Smolin, 2007;Briggs, 2012); others have worried about cultural implications (Brown & de Crespigny, 2009;Chen et al, 2015;Liu, Larsen, & Wyshak, 2004). For Shura et al, ICA is dogged by the spectre of the sale of children (Shura, Rochford and Gran, 2016). In general, ICA processes are often thought to fulfil the desire for children for childless families rather than a humanitarian concern (Briggs, 2012, 209) Conversely, ethical arguments are advanced in favour of ICA; Cuthbert acknowledges that in our contemporary world, ICA allows for the global care of children who may otherwise be denied family-based care (Cuthbert, 2012); Selman (2012) defends ICA, and in particular the adoption of older and disabled children.…”

“…Ethical objections have been raised on the grounds of possible human rights concerns where the power relations are unequal (Smolin, 2007;Briggs, 2012); others have worried about cultural implications (Brown and de Crespigny, 2009;Chen et al, 2015;Liu et al, 2004). For Shura et al (2016), ICA is dogged by the spectre of the sale of children. In general, ICA processes are often thought to fulfil the desire for children for childless families rather than a humanitarian concern (Briggs, 2012, p. 209).…”

“…A considerable body of research exists on the legislation of ICA and its impact 551 China: US intercountry adoption on domestic legislation (Hayes, 2011;Hoffman, 2013). Further, policy is inextricably woven into considerations of ICA: in the discussion of statistical changes ( Jones and Placek, 2017), its ethics (Shura et al, 2016) and ICA law (US Citizenship and Immigration Services, 2016; US Department of State, 2016). Rotabi and Gibbons (2012) draw attention to vulnerable peoples' need for special protections and that, before the Hague Convention (HCIA) existed, ICA allowed for the commodification of children.…”

“…On an international level, the two major policies governing ICA are the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child [UNCRC] and 1993 Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect to Intercountry Adoption [HCIA]. Both of these are specifically concerned with ICA occurring only when it is in 'the best interests of the child' (Bartholet, 2010), something that critics of ICA argue in practice is often secondary to the desires of m15025181f parents and the financial interests of the adoption brokers (Shura, Rochford and Gran, 2016).…”