International child adoption and national catastrophes.

Parker, Roy

Dear Editor

I was interested to read the articles by Peter Selman and Miranda Davies in the last edition of the journal (Adoption & Fostering 35:4, pp 41-62, Winter 2011). These charted patterns of international child adoption since the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, compared events there with those following other tragedies, such as the tsunami in Japan and the floods in Pakistan, and assessed the significance of human rights legislation and the politics of child rescue in relation to what has happened.

Together, the articles raised several salient points that are worth reiterating.

Adoption activity has been and is closely linked to poverty and especially to situations where disaster is superimposed upon severe socio-economic deprivation. It is in these situations that those concerned with children's welfare move in, some with a 'child saving' motive quite often under the auspices of US evangelical Christian ministries such as Orphan's Ransom (Joyce, 2011) and the Southern Baptists' group that targeted so-called orphans in Haiti.

Many children experience an immense cultural chasm when moved elsewhere, a fact that needs to be stressed as well as the benefits.

The practice raises the important question of why adoption is perceived as the best route to 'child saving'. Before and after the Second World War hundreds of Jewish children were settled in British families, largely without adoption. Similarly, war orphans from the First World War were 'looked after' by the Ministry of Pensions and all were placed in foster homes, many with relations.

The Haiti example illustrates the powerful impetus for the needs of potential adopters to shape what happens rather than the needs of the children. Crisis, tragedy and chaos create new opportunities for those eager to adopt but previously unable to do so.

Finally, it is important to acknowledge that 'home-grown' solutions in these times of upheaval are likely to centre on residential care of some kind--which tends to be out of favour in richer countries but often preferred (or more feasible) in the devastated ones. It may be that children who are unaccompanied refugees will prefer to stay together in a 'home' and resist foster care. Indeed, although obliged to be cared for in 'colonies' in Britain, the several thousand children who arrived during the Spanish Civil War appeared to welcome that arrangement.

I hope these observations contribute to further discussions on this important topic.

Roy Parker

Emeritus Professor of Social Policy

University of Bristol, UK

References

Joyce K, 'The evangelical adoption crusade', The Nation, 9 May 2011; www.thenation.com/ signup/160096?destination=article/160096/adoption-commandment