The developing world’s latest export: adoptable children

Many bad things that are done in the world are done by people who are convinced that what they are doing is unquestionably good. In 1992 at an open air mass in Knock, Ireland, Mother Teresa, no doubt under the apprehension that what she was saying was divinely warranted, called for contraceptives to be driven out of the republic. “Let us promise…that we will never allow in this country a single abortion. And no contraceptives.”

Sticking (slightly at least) with the divine theme, Madonna (not the appellation of Mary the supposed mother of Jesus but the pop singer) made her own, more benign intervention in the African continent a decade later to adopt a one-year-old child. Racial, geographical and financial barriers were seemingly broken down and a child with, let’s be honest, little hope of a decent future was given a chance – a real chance – at a better life. One might even call it an act of internationalism. And if there is anything the world needs more of these days, it is internationalism.

It isn’t only Madonna who appears ready to overlook domestic kids in favour of sprogs from overseas, however. The eight agencies that undertake inter-country adoption in the UK received 895 enquiries in 2010-11, which equates to almost 11 per cent of all enquiries about adoption (domestic and inter-country). According to the Consortium of Voluntary Adoption Agencies (CVAA), it now receives more enquiries through its website relating to inter-country than to domestic adoption. (Interestingly, the number of enquiries it received spiked in 2007 which, coincidentally, was the year Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie adopted a three-year-old boy from an orphanage in Ho Chi Min City. We are all celebrities now.)

There is something very modern about inter-country adoption. No longer are potential adopters confined to the selection of a child – a baby, very often – from a finite domestic pool, but they can, as in the modern supermarket, sample a blend of exotic variations from far and wide. Money also talks louder on the international stage. Taking a more direct route, the former Dragon’s Den star James Caan, whose estimated wealth is in excess of £100million, offered an impoverished family 100,000 rupees – about £745 – to buy a baby on a trip to Pakistan in 2010, an impulse he later apologised for.

The boom in inter-country adoption has no doubt been encouraged in part by strict rules governing UK adoption: the average time for an adoption to go through is two years and seven months. The rules on inter-country adoption have gotten considerably tighter since the notorious case of the Kilshaws, however, whom the tabloids dubbed “the most hated couple in Britain” after the pair “bought” two American babies over the internet in 2000.

The growing number of inter-country adoptions has unfortunately also brought with it instances of adopters getting “buyers’ remorse” when the fairytale has not been forthcoming. In April 2010, Torry-Ann Hansen of Tennessee sent her seven-year-old adopted son back to Russia together with a note addressed to the Russian authorities saying she no longer wanted him. Citing behavioural problems, she returned the child, together with his one-way Aeroflot ticket, like an unwanted purchase.

Most of those looking to adopt abroad have, I imagine, the same motivation for doing so as those hoping to adopt domestically: a desire to give a child the best possible start in life. And yet the disparities in power and wealth (as with all disparities in power and wealth) inevitably set up a grossly unequal relationship between budding parents in the west and those who “produce” the adoptees of the future in the developing world. Ethiopia accounted for nearly a quarter of all international adoptions to the US in 2010, second only to China. Adoption is fast becoming Ethiopia’s new export, perhaps soon to overtake coffee. Yet not everybody is happy with the way things are going. “We want people to invest in Ethiopia rather than take our children,” Dr Bulti Gutema, head of the government’s adoption authority, has said. Media investigations have also found evidence to suggest that some adoption agencies have recruited children from intact families.

Without wishing to sound too much like a dyed-in-the-wool nativist, one also need not go all the way to Africa or China to find deprived children. The number of kids in care in the UK has increased by 4,510 – a rise of almost eight per cent – since 2006, when there were 59,890. Yet there were 500 fewer adoptions last year, down from 3,700. Research has shown that children in care are more likely to have no educational qualifications, to become homeless, to commit crime and, in the case of girls, to become teenage mothers. We also know that for every year that a child in care is not adopted, his or her chances of finding parents decreases by 20 per cent. Do not, whatever you do, accept the idea that the “deserving poor” (if you really must use such definitions) exist only overseas.

I have listened to young women in my peer group say on a number of occasions that they have no plans to get pregnant because it will “ruin” their bodies. “Why have a baby yourself, and put yourself through all that, when you can adopt?” as a female friend rhetorically put it to me. As a man I am in no position to judge the pros and cons of pregnancy. How could I possibly make a judgement on that? All the same: how very modern. If the statistics are correct, and if these young women follow through on their plans, there is a good chance one or two of them will look to the developing world for children. Which leads me to a thought I’m not sure that I wanted: would we then, as a society, have arrived at a place where childbirth, like so many other unpleasant things, was being contracted out to the women of the developing world?

Follow James on Twitter @Obligedtooffend

Recent Posts on Notebook

• Barking Blondes: Oh no! Not another dog book!
• Justice for sale but who pays for the cost?
• The Road to the Ultra-Trail du Mont Blanc - Majorca 70.3 Ironman
• The Retail Ready People project means the future of the high street is in your hands
• Don't get mad about Amazon and make the right ethical choice

• http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1035056673 Mari Tatlow Steed

  So money is more important than retaining heritage, culture and blood family? Wow.

• http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1035056673 Mari Tatlow Steed

  What you encountered is a rarity, StartlePixie. No doubt the woman you met adopted with the *right* intentions — that is, to provide a home to two children who desperately needed one. But too many don’t adopt for those reasons. They adopt to fill some empty hole, solve infertility issues and yes, to make a child “entirely theirs” and eradicate any history, identity or connections the child may have or have had. I understand that adopting children with special medical needs is not for everyone, but kudos to those who do step up to the plate and take this on. These people bear no resemblance (in motivations) to the Madonnas and Brangelinas of the world.

• http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1035056673 Mari Tatlow Steed

  Who says they were abandoned, Dolores? Do you know that for sure? Most children adopted from Guatemala, for example, were stolen outright from duped mothers. The same happens throughout Africa, eastern Europe, Asia, and yes, even in the US (take a visit to any ‘crisis pregnancy center’ and watch the interplay as they work hard to coerce a frightened, vulnerable young woman into giving up her child).

• http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1035056673 Mari Tatlow Steed

  Back in the day, when I was adopted from Ireland, many couples chose that “solution” because they knew there was a better than average (or at least better than in the US) chance they would get a 100% white baby. Fact. That and these couples had already been turned down as “unsuitable” by US agencies.

• rabbitlug

  What are you raving on about? Is Madonna adopting entire villages en-mass and exporting them to American to act as backing singers or something?

  In many ways, adopting someone from an impoverished culture can build bridges and raise awareness. It can also mean the difference between growing up in abject poverty, with little prospect of anything more than a subsistence lifestyle and receiving the best nutrition, medical care, education (etc) that money can buy.

  Money is neither good, nor evil, what people do with it is. Given the choice, I know which one I would take.

  This is another case of damned if you do, damned if you don’t. I don’t know Madge personally, nor do I much like her music, but hearing that she is over in Africa at least *trying* to do a few nice things is heartening. I would much rather that, that she hoarded it all, spending it on herself and preserving the rest for her little pack as so many of the megarich do. Back pocket change to her could mean the difference between an entire community starving to death and it not doing so. I think it a good thing that people like her take any interest at all.

• rabbitlug

  My bet:

  The “Madonnas and Brangelinas of the world” are doing more to support communities in Africa than you are in terms of time and relative wealth.

• rabbitlug

  How do you know that they are doing it purely for these reasons? How would it look to you if they were doing it for less selfish reasons? How would the picture be different?

• rabbitlug

  Trying to make friends?

  Yep, if “troll” = “someone who says something I don’t like”.