Intercountry adoption: UNICEF’s war and other critics against intercountry adoption

UNICEF has been waging a war against intercountry adoption for many years against popular understanding. It is a war with results that are far from real-time solutions to the spoils of their victories. UNICEF’s premise that parents in underdeveloped countries must have the means to support their children is not debatable. Neither is UNICEF’s position that intercountry adoption should be only a last resort.

However, the harsh and effective pressure tactics and lobbying efforts of UNICEF towards developing nations calling for ratification of the Hague Treaty for the Protection of Children and the implementation of the adoption law and policy models that they effectively serve to shut down programs entirely or almost entirely to foreign adopters contradicts a misconception. unrealistic and disconnected policy contrary to the best interests of hundreds of thousands of legitimately orphaned and abandoned children around the world. These efforts have resulted in the partial or complete closure of adoptions around the world in countries such as Guatemala, Bulgaria, Paraguay and Romania, to name just a few examples.

Let’s take the example of Guatemala. After intense pressure from UNICEF, Guatemala finally closed its doors to international adoption on December 31, 2008. Prior to that date, foreign nationals adopted approximately 5,000 Guatemalan children per year. Oscar Ávila, “Guatemala Seeks a National Solution to Troubled Overseas Adoptions,” Chicago Tribune, October 26, 2008, stated that “Guatemala has launched an ambitious campaign to recruit foster parents and even adoptive parents at home. “. So far, the program is failing miserably. Avila reports: “Only about 45 families in a nation of 13 million have taken in foster children since the program began this year.”

The approach that Guatemala is taking in trying to attract national attention to the problem is certainly commendable; however, this approach could and should have been implemented concomitantly with an international program that would ensure that thousands of children find a home rather than being wasted in institutions that are often underfunded, understaffed and unable to meet the needs of these children. .

One of the main criticisms of the Guatemalan adoption program before its closure was that it was in the hands of private lawyers who relied on sometimes unscrupulous intermediaries to procure biological mothers who wanted to give up their children and perhaps those who did not want to give up their children. . Of course, this description overlooks the nature of how this practice developed in remote villages in Guatemala, far from lawyers in Guatemala City who could organize adoptions by foreign nationals. It was a practical way of connecting birth mothers, who were seeking adoption as an option for their generally dire circumstances, with attorneys who could then take the children into custody using foster care and then place the children. with families abroad through adoption procedures. It is interesting to note that neither UNICEF nor the Guatemalan government could see that there could be a middle ground to solve the problem of unscrupulous intermediaries who were allegedly forcing these women to hand over their children, paying the women as an incentive, or even , as many reports claim, the abduction of these children for adoption. Many of these reports overlooked the fact that the birth mothers had to hand over their child to a lawyer to advise her on her rights, pass an interview with the Family Court, DNA testing of the birth mother and child, review by the Attorney General of Guatemala, and once again, the consent of the biological mother for the adoption after the approval of the Attorney General. The embassies regularly interviewed the birth mothers and conducted random or case-wide investigations that seemed questionable. During the last year of adoptions in Guatemala, a second DNA test was required at the end of the process based on allegations of changing children with unimpressive findings to support these nonsensical accusations.

The Avila report indicates that the Guatemalan Department of Social Welfare has created satellite offices throughout the country in an attempt to increase its pool of families interested in fostering or adopting these children. Unfortunately, this is exactly the type of reform that many adoption attorneys called for that would eliminate the involvement of intermediaries but allow attorneys to work with the Department of Social Welfare in conjunction with its ongoing program to promote foster care and adoption to Nacional level. UNICEF would not come to the table and neither would the Guatemalan government, which was eager to completely close the door to international adoption in response to UNICEF’s strong and effective lobbying efforts.

Another example of misguided criticism regarding intercountry adoption is found in Malawi, where the infamous adoption of Madonna took place. Malawi is a country of 13 million and approximately 1 million are orphans, half of whom are “AIDS orphans”. Solutions are slow to arrive in a nation beset by an AIDS epidemic that affects nearly a quarter of its population. These orphaned children deserve the opportunity to have permanent homes and families. Intercountry adoption is not a perfect solution to the problem in Malawi and many other nations in Africa, but it saves lives, it gives children one chance, one adoption at a time.

Of course, most would agree that intercountry adoption should not be the only answer to the poverty faced by nations around the world. No rational person would think so. Intercountry adoption should be seen as an interim emergency measure as the United Nations, human rights groups, humanitarian organizations and the governments of these underdeveloped countries seek answers to extreme poverty, high birth rates, the AIDS epidemic, malnutrition, lack of education, lack. of women’s rights and massive unemployment that leads parents to make these difficult decisions about the future of their children. International adoption is a temporary cog in the wheel. UNICEF and other detractors and critics of intercountry adoption have continually failed to recognize the vital emergency role of intercountry adoption and how compromised and intermediate solutions could help orphaned and abandoned children.