International Adoption:Current Status andFuture P’rospectsElizabeth Bartholet

Abstract

Throughout the poorer countries of the world, millions of children live out theiryoung lives in substandard institutions or in the streets. In times of war or politicaland economic upheaval, added numbers of children become homeless. At the sametime, thousands of couples in the more advantaged countries of the West havedemonstrated their eagerness to offer permanent homes to many of these childrenthrough adoption, and have been doing so for more than four decades.

.-ks a result of political pressure and rising nationalism, there h been growinghostility to international adoption in many countries, that have pre,Aously beenwilling to free some of the homeless children for adoption by foreigners.

The laws regulating adoption are varied among the "sending" countries and numer-ous obstacles stand in the way of foreigners who wish to adopt. Aspects of the U.S.Immigration laws pose additional obstacles in the path of adoption of foreign-bornchildren by American citizens.

Declarations by the United Nations in recent years and current progress toward thecompletion of "Convention on Intercountry Adoption" by the Hague Conferenceon private international law offer some hope for facilitatingthe process of interna-tional adoption so that at least some of the children.may be able to find permanenthomes: At the same time, modifications of U.S. Immigration laws will also be needed.

Elizabeth Bartholet isprofessor of law atHarvard Law School,and auth of Fam-ily Bonds: Adoptionand the Politics ofParenting.

nternational adoption is a vet3,’ important part of the total adoptionpicture. Howvarious nations of the world shape the rules govevninointernational adoption will define to a great degree adoption’s future

role as a. parenting alternative. This is because the world divides intoessentially two camps for adoption purposes, one consisting of countrieswith low birthrates and small numbers of children in need ofhomes, andthe other consisting of countries with high birthrates and huge numbersof such children. In the United States and other Western, industrializedcountries, the number of babies surrendered or.abandoned by birthpar-ents has been lirnited in recent decades by contraception, abortion, andthe increased tendency of single parents to keep. their children. ,-ks aresult of these and other factors, ve’ few children are available foradoption in comparison with the large numbers of people who, for

Portions of the mateal in thisa’ticle appear:in B,trtholet, E.F,’unilv Bonds: Adoption andthe Politics of Parenting.,\v York: Houghton Mifflin,I993.

The Future of Children ADOPTION Vol. 3 No, Spring 1993

90" THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN SPRING 1993

infertility and other reasons, are eager to adopt.2 In the poorer countriesof the world, war, political turmoil, and economic circumstances contrib-ute to a situation in which there are very few prospective adopters incomparison with the vast numbers of children in need of homes.

For the infertile people who want to

.parent, international adoption constitutesthe major alternative to infertili treat-ment and infertility,. "by-pass" arrange-ments such as donor insemination andsurrogacy. These prospective parents arefrustrated and discouraged by the com-mon assertion that "there are no babiesavailable for adoption." There is some

children in need, rather than fight over thelimited number ofhealthy infants availablefor.adoption in this counnT. The fact thatthese families are built across lines of racialand cultural difference can be seen as .agood thing, b0...th, for the parents and chil-dren involved and for the larger commu-nity. These are families whose membersmust learn to appreciate one another’s dif-

truthto this assertion, if the focus is limited ferences, in terms of racial and culturalto babies born in the United States. Butthere are many infantsand young childrenin other countries available for adoptionand many more in need of homes. Forpotential adopters ranked low on domes-tic adoption agency eligibility, lists, inter-national adoption significantly increasesthe range of parenting choices. Othercountries have their own screening sys-tems, but the criteria vat),, enormouslyfrom one country to another. As a result,the single person or the over-40 co-uple,often precluded from adoption in theUnited States, can usually find at leastsome countries abroad where they canadopt. From the child’s perspective, inter-national adoption is also ad"antageous.For most of the homeless children of theworld, international adoption representsthe only realistic opportunity for perma-nent families of their own.

There is, however, great controversyabout the benefits and dangers of interna-tional adoption. To some, internationaladoption presents in extreme form someof the problematic issues that are at theheart ofall adoption. It. can be viewed asthe ultimate in the kind of exploitationinherent in ever5 adoption, namely thetaking by the rich and powerful of thechildren born to the poor and powerless.It tends to involve the adoptio.n by the

heritage, while at the same time experienc-ing their common humanit?,’. As discussedin this article, the evidence indicates thatthey succeed in doing so.

The tensions between the different vi-sions of international adoption are evi-dent in recent developments. There hasbeen a vast increase, during, the past fewdecades, in the number of childrenplaced for adoption across national bor-ders.3 Close to I0,000 children per year

have come into the United States (tomabroad for adoption in recent years. The}’comprise one-fifth to one-sixth of all non-relative adoptions in this countD"and a

Worldwide, there are anestimated 15,000 to 20,000international adoptions peryean

-somewhat larger portion of all infantadoptions.4 Worldwide, there are an esti-mated 15,000 to 20,000 internationaladoptions per year.5

This increasing interest in interna-tional adoption is colliding with a new

hostili’ to such adoption. The politics areprivileged classesinthe industrialized na- similar to those involved in the debatetions of the children of the least privileged, about transracial adoption in this court-

groups in the poorest nations, the adop- try.6 Children are said to belongth their

tion by whites ofblack- and brown-skinnedchildren from various Third World na-tions, and the separation of children notonly from their birthparents, but fromtheir racial, cultural, and national commu-nities as well.

To others, however, internationaladoption is a particularly positive form ofadoption. Prospective parents reach out to

"roots" and in their communities oforigin.Political forces in the "sending countries"have been condemning in increasinglyloud voices the practice of gMng theircountries’ children to the imperialistNorth Americans and other foreigners.South Korea, the countD’ responsible forsending more than half the children whohave ever come to this. country, for adop-tion, has in the last few years begun phas.-

International Adoption" Current Status and Future Prospects 91

ing out its foreign adoption program inresponse to such pressures. In combina-tion with other developments, this re-sulted in a dramatic decrease in thenumber of international adoptions in1992. Preliminary data provided by theU.S. Immigration and Naturalization Serv-ice indicate that in fiscal year 1992 therewere only 6,500 such adoptions. Thesenumbers may bounce back up, ascoun-tries- such as Russia and-China ben tosend children abroad for adoption in in-creasing numbers. But it is hard to know

the loving homes that the, need to escapea life of abuse.

II

When international adoption isallowed, theforeign countryapplies its law to decide whatchildren are availablefo _adoption and which shall befreedfor adoptive placement.

what the long-term trend will be. The no-tion that there is, today, something shame- _--

ful in sending homeless children abroadrather than taking care of"one’s own" hasgained widespread acceptance.

This article takes the position that thebenefits of international adoption far out-

weigh any negatives and that internationaladoption should be encouraged with ap-propriate protections against abuses.From this perspective, it reviews currentbarriers to international adoption, dis-cusses developments in international lawregarding adoption, and addresses bothmyths and problems surrounding interna-tional adoption. Then this article presentsrecommendations for future directions ininternational adoption reform.

Barriers and the Role ofLawSignificant barriers now exist between thechildren .in other countries in need ofhomes and those in this country, eager tobecome their parents. A central issue forthe future is whether these barriers shouldbe reduced or made even more impregna-ble. In the author’s opinion, thelaw posesas the protector ofchildren, but in the endfunctions as their enemy. The problem isthat the law focuses only on the negativepotential of international adoption andignores its positive potential. The law ad-dresses the dangers to children and birth-parents that might be involved inremoving them for adopdon abroad, butthe law turns its back on the dangers tochildren involved in growing up on thestreets or in institutions. Few supporters ofthe law seem aware of its cost. The com-mon assunption is that more law willmean more protection for morie childrenagainst abuse. Few recognize that legalprocedures desi,*nedo on paper to protectchildren against abuse ften become in

There is, of course, a need for law toensure that children are not improperlytaken from their birthparents or trans-ferred to situations in which they will bemistreated or exploited. But the lawshould also iarantee children the funda-mental right to grow up in a nurturingenvironment. By focusing exclusively onthe negative potential of internationaladoption, the law fails in its overall obliga-tion to serve children’s best interests.

Foreign Laws and PoliciesAlthough there is great variation amongnations in the way they deal with interna-tional adoption, few countries have de-signed their laws in a way that facilitates theplacement of children in need of homeswith adoptive parents in other.countries.Islamic countries prohibit all adoption,whether foreign or domestic, Some coun-tries prohibit international adoption, andothers place special restrictions on it. Andalthough today most countries appare.ndyallow such adoption, their laws and poli-cies are not designed to accommodate itsunique features, and therefore effectivelyprevent many prospective parents whowould be interested in adopting acrossborders from doing so.

When international adoption is al-lowed, the foreign country applies its lawto decide what children are available foradoption and which shall be freed foradoptive, placement. It decides whetheradoptive parents must come to the child’scountry to be screened and to process theadoption, or whether the child can be sentabroad for adoption. Requirements thatthe adoption take place in. the child’scountry,, of origin add significandy to thefinancial and other costs of an interna-tional adoption, particularly when lengthy

practice legal barriers ttat deny chilciren or uncertain periods of time abroad are

92 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN SPRING 1993

involved, or multiple trips. Many LatinAmerican countries require that adoptive.parents from abroad go through essen-tially the same process as is.required in thecontext of a domestic adoption. The proc-ess that might not be unduly burdensomefor the person who lives locall,v ma.v beoverwhelmingly difficult for the foreignerwho will be required to leave home andfamily andjob to live abroad for the dura-tion of the adoption, which may rangefrom. two weeks-to several months.

South Korea stands out as the country,that has made the most significant efforton the governmental level to facilitate theadoption of its homeless children by for-eigners. It is, of course, in large part be-cause this effort has been so successful thatthe South Korean government came un-der pressure to close down its foreignadoption program.

U.S. Laws and Policies

Most of the countries that funcdon primar-ily as "receixfng’" rather than "sending"countries have done little to adapt theiradoption, immigration and citizenshiplaws to accommodate the realides of inter-

national adoption. As a result these lawspose unnecessary hurdles in the foreignadoption process. The United States’ re-strictive approach to immigration, to-

gether with the complications of thefederal system, mean that would-be adop-tive parents face a particularly challenngseries of hurdles in accomplishing a for-eign adoption. They must satis, the lawsand policies of their home state and of theU.& government, in addition to those ofthe foreign country, at issue. Because of theabsence ofcoordination among these.juris-dictions, the parents and their future childwill be screened repeatedly, subject to over-lapping and often inconsistent standards.

At the state level, prospective parentsmust initially satisfy their home state’s re-quirements with respect to parental fitnessand other matters. A satisfactory., homestudy is a prerequisite under federal lawfor all international adoptions.

At the federal level, immigration rulesmust be satisfied before a child placed bya foreign countr),, for adoption xdll be per-mitted to enter, the United States with itsadoptive parents. These rules allow theissuance of the "preferential visas" thatpermit the immediate enuT of foreign-born adoptees7 only where adoptive par-ents can demonstrate that they satisfy

federal criteria for assessing paten tal fitnessand that the}, have fulfilled all require-ments under the applicable laws of theparents’ home state and of the child’scountU of origin. These requirements cre-ate additional levels of significantly dupli-cative processing.

The Orphan Restriction

Congress has severely limited the scope offoreign adoption by permitting entry., onlyto foreign adoptees who fit a narrow "or-phan" definition. For an adoptee to qual-ify, both parents must have died or haveabandoned the child, or the "sole or sur-viving" parent must be unable to care forthe child.8 Children may be disqualifiedsimply because they appear to have two

living "parents," even if the only evidenceof the father’s existence is a name on abirth certificate9 and even if the parentsare demonstrably unable or .unwilling tocare for the child and are interested.inadoptive placement. Even children whohave been left in an orphanage for pur-poses of adoption or deserted on thestreets may not quaii’ as "unconditionallyabandoned" for U.S. immigration law pur-poses.0 Furthermore, those children who

International Adoption" Current Status and Future Prospects 93

have already been adopted in foreigncountries in accordance with the laws ofthose countries, are permitted to enter the.United States with their legal adoptive par-ents only .if they are found to satisfy theorphan definition.

The.orphan restriction is an anomaly..Virtually all jurisdictions within this coun-

of these documents with relative easeshould the need arise. Although a secondadoption in the United States is usually nomore than a formality, state law require-ments will have to be satisfied. Only a fewstates have designed-their adopdon lawsto facilitate recognition of foreign adop-tion decrees.12

try and throughout the world permit chil-dren to be surrendered foradoption" ’ ’"--**

without reard to whether a child has oneparentor vo, or whether the parents areable to care for the child. 11

The orphan restriction causes manyproblems. It prevents the adoption ofmany children who are in need of homesand free for adoption under the laws oftheir..own country. It means that birthpar-ents may feel compelled to abandon theirchildren rather than surrender them inan orderly way,. in the hope of makingtheIn eligible for adoption in the UnitedStates. And it can .add significantly to theemotional difficulties involved when theadoption takes place abroad. The 4sa de-cision dll not be made until the parentshave completed the adoption and areready to return home. And the facts thatdetermine whether a child satisfies thedefinition often cannot be known untillate in the adoptive process. Adoptive par-ents must therefore go through the entireprocess of becoming the hild’s emo-tional and legal parents without knowingfor sure whether at the end they will bepermitted to bring the child home withthem to the United States.

Duplicative Ado.ption and Citizenship

.,M’ter a child has been brought into theUnited States, additional .legal steps arerequired to fully protect the child andreg-ularize the new parent-child relation-ship. A U.S. adoption is necessary, if the.child has not been adopted abroad and isadvisable even if such an adoption hastaken place. A foreign adoption decree isnot entitled to. the same "full faith andcredit" accorded a decree issued by courtswithin the United States A U.S. adoptionis therefore important to guarantee thechild fully protected legal status as anadoptee. In actdition, the U.S. decree willgenerally be necessa’ to obtain a U.S.birth certificate. It can be vey importantas a practical matter for adoptees to havetheir key birth and adoption documentsissued by U.S. agencies i a language andstyle that will be faniliav to other U.S.agencies and to 1)e :ble to l)tain copies

Foreign adoptees do not becomecitizens by virtue oftheiradoption by U.S. citizens. Theymust applyfor citizenship, a

process.that ordinarily takes

from six months to a year.

For most adoptive parents, the finalstep in the foreign adoptive process in-volves helping their child acquire U.S. citi-zenship. Foreign adoptees do not becomecitizens by virtue of their adoption by U.S.citizens. They must apply for citizenship,a process that ordinarily takes from sixmonths to a year. This final bureaucratichurdle appears to have no substantivemeaning. Quite clearly.the goal is not todetermine which of these foreign-born in-fants and young children are fit to becomeU.S. citizens, but simply to provide citizen-ship status for all foreign-born adopteeswho apply.

From start to finish, internationaladoption involves an enormous amount

of process with very little substance. Par-ent and child must be screened on multi-pie occasions by numerous agencies,dozens of documents must be accumu-lated, notarized, certified, stamped withofficial stamps, copied, and translated.For prospective parents with sufficient r.e-sources and determination, internationaladoption can be accomplished, la Thereare .many who are able and willing to en-dure a great deal for the opportunity,: to

adopt. Moreover, many U.S. adoptionagencies have established ongoing pro-grams with foreign agencies, and for par-ents who ave able to work through theseprograms, a foreign adoption may be nomore difficult than many domestic adop-tions. But the bureaucratic process cre-ates veT significant costs in financial andother terms. The expenses renerallyrange upwards of $10,000, with many in-ternational a-ctol)tions costing S 15,0{50 to

94 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN:- SPRING 1993

$2.5,000 even when no major obstacles other appropriate legal status for the chil-arise. Prospective parents can easily de- dren when adopted. But these documentsvote years of their lives to adoptive efforts do not establish standards for the process-that turn out to be futile. The children ing of international adoptions, and theywho are eventually adopted will generally relegate such adoptions to "last resort"have spent long periods of their young status, with the preferred options beinglives in orphanages or other institutionswaiting for adoptive placement. Most im-portant, large numbers Who could havebeen adopted will not be since, for most

prospective adoptive parents, the barriersare too great to surmount.

The Conference proceedings have beendominated largely by the concerns ofthose whofocus on the negative rather than the positiveaspectsofinternational adoption._1_ IILIII

__Despite its complexities, the process

prm5des less protection than it should forthe children who manage to get adopted.The lak of coordination between the dif-ferent jurisdictions means that some chil-dren fall through the cracks and aredenied fully.protected adoptive or citizen-ship status. Furthermore, the difficultiesof the process provide incentives to findways to take short cuts around the legalsystem. 14

International Law and theHague ConventionThere is ve, little international law gov-erning adoption across borders, Most ofwhat exists is designed primarily to protectagainst potential abuses in. internationaladoption, rather than to establish stand-ards to facilitate such adoption.

The United Nations has in recent yearstaken some significan action, with the pas-sage by the General Assembly of the Decla-ration on Social and Legal Principles Relatingto Adoption andFoster Placement of ChildrenNationally andInternationally in 1986,5 andthe Convention On the Rights of the Child in19896 (hereafter the U.N. Adoption Decla-ration and the U.N. Convention). Thesedocuments recognize theletimacy of in-ternational adoption and demonstrate the

adoption or foster care orother "suitable"care in the child’s country of orig-in. 17

Some countries have, in the past fewdecades, developed bilateral treaties orother agreements designed to governadoption between a particular sendingand a particular receiving country.18 Butmost of the significant intercountr?.’ co-operation that exists today occttrs not onthe governmental but on the adoptionagency level.

The Haste Conference on private in-ternational law recendy embarked on aproject designed to produce a "Conven-tion on Intercountry Adoption," agreed to

by the major sending and receiving coun-tries of today’s world.9 Current plans callfor agreement on a final draft in the springof 1993, following which the various coun-tries involved would make their internaldecisions as to whether to adopt the Con-vention. This represents the first effort to

bring together the countries principallyinvolved in international.adoption to try

to get beyond the very general principlesincorporated in the U.N. Adoption Declara-tion and the U.N. Convention.

The Hague effort was originally de-signed, at least in part, to facilitate theinternational adoption process, by estab-lishing a legal framework that wouldmaximize the potential for cooperationamong different nations and reduce ir-rational barriers to the placement ofchildren across borders. However theConference-proceedings have beendominated largely by the concerns ofthose who focus on the negative ratherthan the positive aspects of internationaladoption. The current draft Conventionreflects this orientation. It endorses the"subsidiarity" principle noted above, per-mitting international adoption only as alast resort, after possibilities for in-coun-try care have been exhausted. Its provi-sions are designed primarily to addressthe classic dangers associated with adop-

international communit)"s support for a tion--the risk that children will be im-number ofbasic principles regarding such properly removed from theiradoption, for example, that there should birthparents and the risk that childrenbe safeguards against abduction and will be placed with unfit adoptive par-against trafficking for profit and that there ents. There has been vigorous opposbshould be guarantees of citizenship and tion to any notion that the Convention

International Adoption: Current Status and Future Prospects 95

might serve, to facilitate internationaladoption.

At one time the Hague project of-fered, significant promise for reformsthat would makeinternational adoptionwork more effectively. Now there is a riskthat it dll simply establish additionalbarriers to the placement of children..But there is reason to hope that theHague effort will result in no significantharm to international adoption. The fi-nal Convention draft may demand nomore than some relatively minor proce-dural changes in the process for accom-plishing an international adoption. It isalso not clear that any Conventionagreed to will actually be adopted .by asignificant number of countries.

It is still possible, of course, that theHag-ue effort will result in some changes tofacilitate international adoption. Recentdrafts suggest a model for internationaladoption which would vastly simpli theprocess. It would g-ire sending countriesresponsibili .ty fordecisions related to free-ing children for adopdon and would We

acterize the lives of huge numbers of thechildren of the world. Millions ofchildrendie regularly of malnutrition and of dis-eases that should not kill. Millions morelive in miserably inadequate institutions20or on the streets.21 Their situations vary:some institutions are worse than others;some "street children" maintain a connec-tion with a family while others are entirelyon their own. But there can be no doubtthat overwhelming numbers of childrenin. the poor countries of the world arelivingand dying in conditions whichinvolve extreme degrees of deprivation,neglect, exploitation, and abuse.22 Inter-national adoption should be seen as anopportunity to solve some of these realand desperate problems for some chil-dren. It should be structured to maximizethis positive potential by facilitating theplacement of children in need of nurtur-

ing homes with people in a position to

provide those homes.

Recent drafts.., would ve sendMg countriesreceiving countries responsibility for deci-sions related to screening prospective par- responsibilityfor decisions .related to freeingents, thereby eliminating the duplicativedecision making t).’pical of today’s proce-dures. A Convention might help create anatmosphere in which it is more politicallyacceptable than it is today for sendingandreceiving countries to work together to es-tablish, the cooperative arrangements thatare essential to make international adop-tion work better than it does presently. Inaddition, the Convention effort may stimu-late reform on the nadonal level. In theUnited States the Convention effort hasalready focused new attention on ways inwhich our immigration, citizenship, andadoption laws should be changed to makeinternational adoption work better.

Nonetheless, it seems clear that theHag-ue Convention w-ill do little to establish.the "kind ofnew legal framework needed tomake the international adoption processwork effectively. It Mll be left to the variousnations of the world to take the initiative,either under the aes of a vague Conven,tion or in the absence of a Convention.

Real Problems andMythical.ConcernsThe problems that should be seen as cen-tral to the i,ternational adoption debateare tte misery and deprivation that char-

childrenfor adopts:on and wouldWe receivingcountries responsibilityfor decisions .related toscreeningprospective parents.

International adoption can, of course,play only a very, limited role in addressingthe problems that the children of theworld face. Solutions lie in reallocatingsocial and economic resources bothamong countries and within countries, sothat more children can be cared for bytheir birthamilies. But, ven the fact thatsocial reordering on a major scale is noton the immediate horizon, internationaladoption clearly can serve the interests ofat least those children in need of homesfor whom adoptive parents can be found.

Adoption and Underlying Social Ills

Some have suggested that internationaladoption programs might conflict Mthprograms designed to improve te lives ofthe millions of children now in need orwith efforts to accomplish the kind of so-cial reordering that might help the chil-dren of the future. For example, somearg-ue that instead of promoting and pur-suing adoption, governments and indi-viduals in the well-off, industrializedcountries .should devote increased re-

96 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN SPRING 1993

sources to more-cost-effective programsdesigned to promote the well-being ofchil-dren in their native lands. These effortscould include improving foster care ar-rangements, sponsoring orphanages, andsupporting various UNICEF projects.

Such efforts, however, are not incon-sistent withsupporting foreign adoption.Indeed, the opposite is true. Foreign adop-tion programs are likely to increase aware-ness in the United States and otherreceiving countries of the prgblems ofchildren in the sending countries. These-programs give thosewho adopt reason to

identify, through their children, with thesituations of other children not luckyenough to have found homes. Foreignadoption is thus likely to help create aclimate more sympathetic to.wide-rangingforms of support for children abroad.

Adoption must not be used to break up viable

birthfamilies, and those who want to adoptmust not be allowed to use theirfinancial ad-vantage to induce impoverished birthparentsto surrender their children,

lies.23 Given the real problems confi’ontingthe world’s children, it should be clear thatthis principle requires laws and policiesdesigned to facilitate the internationalplacement of children in need of homes.

The Risk of Abuse and Exploitation

Another argument voiced against ix’t-ternational adoption is that it might .re-lieve pressure within some sendin,,

countries to deal with social problems thatneed attention. But this arg-ument alsocollapses upon analysis. Sending childrenabroad for adoption tends to highlightrather than to hide the fact that there areproblems at home. Indeed, it seems likelythat a major reason for the hostility exhib-ited by many sending countries towardforeign adoption relates to their govern-ments’ embarrassment at having domesticproblems spotlighted by this public con-fession of their inability to take care ofhir own children.

Mthough speculative arguments can al-ways be mounted, it is unlikely that adop-tion of a relatively small number of theworld’s homeless children will significantlyinterfere with the efforts to assist those

Care should be taken, ofcourse, to preventinternational adoption from creating newproblems. Adoption must not be used tobreak up viable birthfamilies, and thosewho want to adopt must not be allowed touse their financial advantage to induceimpoverished birthparents to surrendertheir children. There is a need for laws thatprohibit baby buying, and for rules govern-ing the process bywhich a child is removedfrom one parent to be given to another.The rules should ensure that the birthpar-ents have voluntarily surrendered or aban-doned their child, or have had theirparental rights terminated for good rea-son. There is also a need for rules designedto ensure that adoptees receive loving,nurturing adoptive homes, and are pro-tected against an?’ foxn of exploitation.

But it is patently absurd to talk as if thereal dangers for children were the dangersthat they might be taken fl-om their birth-parents for purposes of abuse and exploi-ration. Nonetheless public discourseabout international adoption focuses over-whelmingly on its alleged risks. Concernis regularly expressed in’ this country andabroad about the dangers that chiidrenwill be "kidnapped or bought from theirbirthparents for sale to rich North .Ameri-cans; the media in this countr?, give head-line coverage to stories of ’,kidnappingrings" or "baby traffic’king." There are, ofcourse, some documented instances ofkidnappings and ofimproper payments to

birthparents. But there is no evidence thatthese practices are widespread, and it isquite unlikely that the), are. 24 Current lawmakes it extremely risk?" for adoption in-termediaries and would-be adopters to en-gage in baby bung or "kidnapping. Evenif some might be willing to engage in suchactivities if this were the only way or theeasiest way to accomplish an adoption., thefact is that it is not. The world is, sadly, alltoo full of birthparents desperate to find.homes for the children they cannot care

other children who remain in their native: for, and ofchildren who have alreadybeencountries. Indeed, the nations of the world surrendered or abandoned. When oneare in general agreement that "the best loo’ks beneath the surface of most mediainterests of the child" should be the pare- and other stories of "child trafficking,’.itmount principle governing the placement becomes clear that the term "trafficking"of children outside their biological fami- is Used very loosely. The stories sometimes

International Adoption: Current Status and Future Prospects- 97

involve claims that what is characterized’asa "bribe" has been paid to an official, with-out.disclosing the fact that sma.ll paymentsare t.raditional in the conduct of officialbusiness in the country‘ at issue, Often thetrafficking stories say simply that the adop-tive parents paid a great deal of money toagencies or other adoption intermediarieswithout indicating whether anything be-yond legitimate fees for services were in-vo)ved. Rarely. is there any evidence thatbirthparents have been paid or that chil-dren have been taken from birthparentscapable of and interested in raising them.

Romanian Adoption

The point is not to justify,, everything thathas been done in the name of interna-tional adoption, but to look at even suchabuses as occur in perspective. Recentevents involving Romanian adoption areillustrative. The foreign adoptions thatfollowed the fall of the Communist re-gime in Romania in 1989 became thesource of the !najor. adoption "scandalstory," of the early 1990s. The story, be-came a focal point for media discussionsof international adoption25 and has beenused effectively by opponents of suchadoption in the context of the HagueConvention negotiations and more gen-erally. Would-be adopters from theUnited States and other countries weredescribed as wandering through Roma-nian villages offering payments to inducebaffled villagers to give up their childrenfor adoption. There undoubtedly weresome number of cases involving illicit pay-ments to Romanian birthparents for theirchildren, and there is no question thatsuch transactions deserve condemnation.But the real stor+ of the children in Roma-nia, and the roie of international adop-tion in their lives, is one in which babybuying deserves a limited anaount ofspace. It has to do with a country in whichtens of thousands of children lived inorphanages and state hospitals, wherethousands acquired AIDS. It has to dorith institutional conditions so horribleas to stun even the jaded repor.ters whofirstrevealed them to the world.26 It alsohas to do with the fact that once news ofthe situation in Romania got out, thou-sands of people came forward who wereeager to adopt some of the children theyrehd about and saw on telmAsion. Thou-sands of children were adopted, somefrom these institutions and some directly

from birthparents who were unable tocare for them. 27

It is true that international adoptionwas mishandled in Romania and that someabuses occurred. But the real scandal wasthat, when would-be adopters came for-ward, there was no system in place to han-dle adoptions in a way w.hich would havefacilitated placement while preventingabuses. Moreover, international adoptiondid not represent tragedy for the childrenof Romania or for their birthparents, al-thohgh i.t .h.as been described that way. Thetragedy has to do with the conditions inwhich Romanian children were and areliving and dying. The current move torestrict international adoption may or maynot eliminate certain abuses, but it dlIalmost surely prevent large numbers ofRomanian children from escaping the des-perate situations of their lives to live inloving adoptive hones.28

Loss of Roots versus Opportunities forBetter Lives

Critics of international adoption oftenvoice concern that chitdren ill not re-ceive appropriate care in their new fami-lies and countries..,Mguments are madethat it is unfair to separate children fromtheir racial, ethnic, cultural, and nationalgroups of orion. Loss of the group linkand sense of group heritage is said to be adeprivation in itself..and growing up.in aforeign land is said to pose risks of dis-crimination.

There is a needfor rules designed to ensurethat adoptees receive loving, nurturingadoptive homes, a,ut are protected againstany ofe p oit aon.

Those who voice these concerns againignore the realities of children’s currentsituations. International adopdon repre-sents an extraordinarily positive option forthe homeless children of the world, com-pared to all other realistic options. Mostof these children will not be adopted oth-erwise. They will continue to live in inade-quate institutions or on the streets. Fostercare is available only to a limited degreeand sometimes results in little more thanindentured servitude. The homeless chil-dren who survive to grow up often will face4rulent forms o[" discrimination in theirown countvv, based )n their racial ov eth-

98 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN SPRING 1993

nic status, or simply on the fact that the),are ille.#dmate or orphaned.

The research studies on the outcomeof international adoption show that thesechildren and thei," families function welland compare favorably on various meas-ures of emotional adjustment xdth otheradopdve families, as well as with biologicalfamilies.9-9 This is stri’kingly positive exidence since most international adopteeshave had problematic preadopdve histo-ries which could be expected to cause dif-ficulties in adjustment.-0 The studies showthat adopdon has, for the most part, beenvet?, successful in enabling even those chil-d.ten who have suffered extremely severeforms of deprivation and abuse in theirearly lives to recover and flourish. 31

Some of the research hints at the com-plex issues involved in being part of abiracial, bicultural, binational family.3

But the studies provide no evidence thatthe challenge of establishing a sadsfactoD,ethnic and cultural idendtv causes anyharm to the international ad’optee.3 Thefindings are consistent with those in thetransracial adoption studies. Black chil-dren who grow up in white familiesemerge with a strong sense of black iden-

tit?.’. At the same time they tend to have abi.cultural or muldcultural orientation.They apparen.dy enjoy an unusual degreeof comfort in both black and white worlds,and are unusually committed to a futurelife in which they can relate to both those

worlds. The?’ are flourishing in all theterms in which psychic health and socialadjustment are typically measured.-4

There is no.evidence that a multiculturalidentit)’ is problematic fl’om the perspec-tive of the children involved.

There has been no focus in the studieson determining what special positivesmight be inherent in international adop-tion for the children, their adoptive fami-lies, or the larger societ?’. But some studieshint at the rich qualig, of the experienceinvolved in being part of an internationaladoptive family and the special perspectiveits members may develop on issues ofcom-munity.85

It seems clear that the debate over in-ternational adoption has little to do withgenuine concerns over ris’ks to children.Children are being sacrificed to notions ofgroup pride and honor. As Tizard has de-scribed:

It is argued that diepractice is a new formof colonialism, with wealthy Westernersrobbing poor countries of their children,and thus their reso-urces. National prideis involved. However poor the country,they find the implication that they cannotcare for their own children to be undignbfled and unacc.eptable.6

Thus poor countries feel pressure tohold on to what they term "their preciousresources," and rich countries feel embar-

International Adoption’ Current Status and Future Prospects

rassed to do anything that looks like colo- process is made carefully by a responsiblenialist exploitation, agency and then deferred to by all others.

But there is no real conflict between All duplicative processes should be elimi-

the interests of the sending and those of nated. Several agreements already estbetween particular sending and receivingthe receiving nations. International adop-

tion serves a symbolic function for those --_in power. Sending countries can talk oftheir homeless children as "precious re-sources," but it is clear that the last thingthese countries actually need is more chil-dren to care for. At the same time, thewell-off countries of the world have noburning need for these children. Theirgovernments might be willing to permitthe entry of adoptees from abroad to en-able those.struggling with inferfili,ty to par-ent, but international adoption is not seenas serving any strong national interest. Sothe homeless children end up as "re-sources" that the receiving countries oftheworld are quite willing to forgo to improverelations abroad.

Directio.ns for the FutureThe starting point should be agreementthat children are not to be thought of as"resources," belong{ng in some funda-mental way to their racial or ethnic ornational communities oforig-in. The worldshould take seriously the sentiments enun-ciated in international human fights.docu-ments that children are entitled to aloving, nurturing environment, and thattheir best interests should be the g-uidingprinciple in the structuring of interna-tional adoption.

Receiving countries need to take ac-tion to build trust. They must recognizethat there are genuine concerns aboutexploitation, ,as well as a long histo’ ofresentment. Good faith could be demon-strated and children’s interests servedthrough offers to develop and fund pro-ams to benefit children’s welfare withina sending country., in conjunction with anyinternational-adopdon programs that areinstituted. Mechanisms could be devel-oped to provide sending countries withreflar feedback on what has happenedto the children sent abroad for adoption.Reg-ular reports could help assure sendingcountries that their children are receivinggood treatment and are thriving in theirnew adoptive homes.

Sending and receiving countries needto agree on a legal framework for interna-tional adoption that would facilitate place-ment. The model should be one in whicheach of the key decisions in tte adopdve

The world should take seriously the sentimentsenunciated in .international human rightsdocuments that children are entitled to a. loving,nurturing environment, and that their bestinterests should be the ddingprinciple in hestructurirN of.international adoption.

III I[

countries which provide examples of howthe laws of two nations can be coordinatedto facilitate the adoption process.:w Re-ceiving countries should revise their adop-tion, immigration, and nationalizationlaws to remove impediments to interna-tional adoption, and to ensure fully pro-tected status to all foreign adoptees.

For the United States this would meanthe following:

Development of agreements with othernations on a legal framework facilitatinginternational adoption. This could bedone either under the auspices of a newHague Convention or apart from it.

[] Recog-nition in such agreements of theprinciple that children’s best interests re-quire that children in need of homes beplaced for adopdon as expeditiously aspossible. Children deserve nurturinghomes now and not simply at some distantpoint in the future. Delay hurts and maydo permanent injury.aS[] Elimination of the immigration law pro-visions that now restrict the children avail-able for adopdon by U.S. citizens to thosesatisB,,’ing the narrow "orphan" definition.

[] Qualification for entry into the UnitedStates of all children that appropriatesending country authorities designate asbeing available for adoptive placement.[] Revision of U.S. laws to ensure that for-eign agency: decisions releasing childrenfor adoption and foreign adoption de-crees are honored by U.S. agencies andcourts. This would help ensure fullyprotected adoptive status to childrenadopted from abroad and would eliminatethe necessity for duplicative adoptionproceedings.9

100 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN SPRING 1993

I Development of simple procedures toensure that every foreign adoptee receivesa’n English-language birth certificate froma U.S. agency upon submission ofa foreignadoption decree.

I Revision ofU.S. citizenship laws to makecitizenship.automatic upon completion ofa foreign-born child’s adoption by a U.S.citizen,just the way citizenship s now auto-matic upon birth of a child to U.S. citizenswhether they are living here or abroad.

ConclusionThe current tendency to glorify groupidentity and to emphasize the importanceof ethnic and cultural roots combines withnationalism to make international adop-tion newly suspect in this country’ as well asin the world at large. But restricting inter-national adoption does not put poor coun-tries in a better economic position or abetter power position with respect to for-eign governments. It is simply a syrnbolicgesture "for" the nation and "against" the

foreigners that is easy and cheap to make:The children themselves have no politicalinfluence, and their voices are not heard.

The nations of the world should movebeyond political hostilities and snbolicacts to focus on the real needs of children.If they did, theywould accept internationaladoption as a good solution for at leastsome portion of the world’s homeless, chil-dren and could ben to restructure theirlaws andpolicies so as to facilitate ratherthan impede such adoption. One Sidebenefit would be that man)’ more of theinfertile who want to parentwould be Wenthe opportunig’ to do so through adoption.These people now feel under significantpressure to pursue biological parenthoodthrough high-tech infertili" treatment or.complicated surrogacy arrangementsmpressure that makes little sense in a worldsuffering in myriad ways from overpopula-tion. Another side benefit would be enrich-ment ofour understanding of the meaningof family and of comtnunig".

1. See Bartholet, E. Family bonds: Adoption and the politics ofparenting. New York: HoughtonMifflin, 1993. See also Bartholet, E. International Adoption: Overview. In Adoption Law and Prac-tice, J.H. Hollinger, ed. New York: Matthew Bender & Co., Inc., 1988, Supp. 1992 (hereaf-ter Bartholet, Ove.,iew), which contains sources and documentation for some of thematerial discussed here. See also Bartholet, E. Book re,Aew, Ha,ard Intenzational LawJour-hal (1992) 33:649. For an excellent discussion of the histo, and current nature of interna-tio.nal adoption, see Hague Conference on Private International Law. Report on intercounto’adoption. Prelimina’ Document No. 1. Drawn up byJ.H.A, van Loon (April 1990) (hereaf-ter Hague Report).

2. It has been estimated that in the United States upwards of a million families are interestedin adoption, although only about 200,000 are currently taking steps to pursue it. SeeBartholet, E. Where do black children belong? The politics of race matching in adoption,Penno,lvania I[.aw Reviao (1991) 139:1163, 1166 n. 5 (hereafter Bartholet, Race Matching)..See generally the article by Stolley in this journal issue.

3. See note no. 1, Bartholet, Overview, pp. 10-6 to 10-7.

4. See the article by Stolley in this journal issue.

5. See note no. 1, Hague Report, p. 62, n. 96. See also Todd, D. Children new commodity, in red-hot world market, l/ancouver Sun, October 1,1991, at F4.

6. See note no. 2, Bartholet, Race Matching.7. Without the preferential visa the foreign-born adoptee would be subject to the regular

quota system limiting immigrants and would, in most instances, not be eligible for ent’for many years.

8. 8 U.S.C. section 1101 (b) (1) (F) (1976) Less restrictive requirements are applicable whenthe adoptee has lived abroad with the adoptive parents for two years: there is then no U.S.home study requirement and no orphan restriction. Immigration and Nationality Act, 8U.S.C. section 1101 (b) (1) (E) (1976).

9. Children whose birthfathers’ paternity, has been established in countries which have proce-dures for legitimating such children, as most countries do, cannot quali" as an orphaneven if the parents have never married or lived together, and even if the father has never"known or has.abandoned the child. See U.S. Department ofJustice, INS. The immiuationofadopted and prospective adoptive .children, Form M-249Y (1990), pp. 18-19.

10 See note no. 9, U.S. Department ofJustice, pp. 19-20.

International Adoption: Current Status and Future Prospects 101

11. Krause, H. Creation of relationships of kinship, in International Encyclopedia of ComparativeLaw, The Hague: New York, 1976, vol. 4, pp. 85-86.

12. Carlson, R. Transnational adoption of children. Tulsa LawJournal (1988) 23:317, 366-70.

13. For information about how to accomplish an international adoption, see note no. 1,Bartholet, Overv/ew, section 100312], pp. 10-23 to 10-33. See also Gelber, G. Internationaladoption: Legal requirements and practical considerations, pp.. 11A-1 to 11A-23 in Adop-tion Law and Practice, cited in note no. 1..

14. See note .no. 1, Hague Report, p. 188, noting the connection between irrational legal barri-ers and abusive adoption practices. The report argues, that internationally aee.d.to stand-ards ensuring "straight forrard and well-structured procedures for intercountryadoption" should contribute to combating child trafficking and further asserts that "if pro-spective adopdve parents are offered an alternative which provides them with guidance,avoids needless costs and minimizes bureaucratic procedures, they will be less tempted tohave recourse to dubious intermediaries."

15. U.N. General Assembly Resolution 41/85 of December 3, 1986, attached as ’Annex H to theHague Repgrt, cited in note no. 1.

16. Adopted on November 20, 1989, and attached as Annex to the Hague Report, cited in note

no. 1. Articles 20, 21, and 35 deal with the protection of children without families, adop-tion.nationally and internationally, and the sale, trafficking, and abduction of children.

17. See U.N. Adoption Declaration ,article 17 ("If a child cannot be placed in a foster or an adop-tive family or cannot in any suitable manner be cared for inthe country of origin, inter-country ado.ption may be considered as an alternative means of pro4ding the child with afamily")" U..,xL Convention.-krticle 21(b) (States recognizing adoption shall "recognize thatintercountry adoption may be considered as an alternative means of a child’s care, if thechild cannot be placed in a foster or an adoptive family or cannot in any suitable mannerbe cared for in the child’s country, of origin").

18. See note no. 1, Hague Report’ pp. 174-78, which describes aeements beveen govern-menu, and beveen governments and nongovernmental organizations, that exist betweenthe Philippines on the one hand, and Australia, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Norway onthe other, between Sweden on the one hand and Ecuador and Greece on the other, andbetveen El Salvador and Canada.

19. See note no. 1, Hague Report. The author has been serving as a member of an advisorygroup to the U.S. State Department in connection th its role in representing U.S. inter-ests in the Hague Conference negotiations.

20. Institutionalization is far more common than foster care in the poor nations of the world,as well as in South Korea. See note no. 1, Hague Report, p. 64, where it is noted that institu-tions, "often poorly staffed, managed and supervised, are a major, perhaps the major.’source’ of children being adopted abroad."

21. Estimates of the numbers of street children--children who essentially live in the streetsvary from 31 to 80 million, with roughly one-half located in Latin America. While most ofthese children are thought to have "continuous" contact with their biolocal families, it isestimated that some 25% have only "occasional" contact or no contact whatsoever.UNICEF Executive Board. Exploitation ofworking children and street children. U.N. Doc. EICEF/1986/CRP.3, p. 16, attached as Annex B to. the Hague Report, cited in note no. 1.Others have estimated the total number of street children at 100 million., and project thatthis total will do.ble in the next decade. Estimates of the number ofStreet children in Bra-zil alone range from 10 to 36 million. In addition there are said to be more than 10 mil-lion refugee children.

22. General economic, health, and related conditions for children in Africa and Latin ,Mrnerica

have been getting worse in recent years, and this trend is likely to continue. UNICEE Sum-maD; The sta.te of the zvorld’s children. New York: UNICEF House,1989.

23. See note no. 5, U.N. Adoption Declaration Article 5 ("In all matters relating to the placementof a child outside the care of the child’s own parents, the best interests of the child, par-ticularly his or her need for affection, and fight to securit?.." and continuing care, should bethe paramount consideration"). See also note no. 16, U.N. Convention,article 21.

24. A publication on "Intevcountry Adoption and Trafficking in Children" put out by Defensefor Children International, an organization that has focused ahnost entirely on the nega-tive aspects of international adoption, concedes that tr,-aficking cases are extremely lim-ited in number: "IT]he vast majority, [of birth parents] do not part with their child formoney, but out of despair or with the hope to ensure the child’s welfare or survival[Trafficking] cases are reported from time to time but not.well documented. No doubtthey constitute onlv a tiny proportion of the displacements of children for adoption puv-

102 THE FUTURE OF CHILDREN SPRING 1993

poses." Lucker-Bubel. Inter-countU adoption, and trafficking in children: An initial assessment ofthe adequacy ofthe international protection ofchildren and their rights, D.C.L Geneva: Defensefor Children International, 1990, p. 2.

25. See, for example, 60 Minutes (CBS News television broadcast, April 14, 1991); Hunt, K. TheRomanian baby bazaar, New York Times, March 24, 1991, section G (magazine); Todd, D.International baby-buying rampant, says U.N. study, Ottawa Citizen, August 1, 1991, at A7.See generally Pollitt, J.. Intercountry adoption: Serving the welfare of children, March1992, pp. 49-5.3, concerning international adoption issues in.the Romanian context, anunpublished paper on file with the author).

26. See note no. 25, Pollitt, pp. 45-49. See also Cant-well, Who said "Best interests"? Interna-tional Human Rights Monitor (1990) 7,1/2:4 (165,000 children in Romanian orphanages,with the conditions ranging "from being unacceptable to constituting grossly inhumantreatment"). A recent documentar?’ film is moving testament to some of the horrors. Lostand Found, directed and produced byJoshua Sorrel, premiered at the Museum ofFineArts in Boston, Massachusetts, on May 8, 1992.

27. See note no. 25, Pollitt, pp. 49-50. Some 5,000 children were adopted from December1989.until July 1991" 1,500 of these were adopted by people from the United States, withroughly half the children coming from institutions.

28. For a description of legal "reform" moves in Romania, see note no. 25, Pollitt, pp. 58-63.See also Canns,ell, N., and David, E Romania: Is the adoption jungle a thing of the past?.International Children’s Rights Monitor (1991 vol. 8, special issue: 29-30. And see Farrow,M. Romanian orphans suffer by new rules, supporter says. Vancouver Sun, August 9, 199,at All. (new regulations will cause thousands to languist unnecessarily in institutions)"Farrow, M. Romania’s children continue to struggle. Vancouver Sun, December 4, 1991, atB2_ (20% increase in number of children in Romanian orphanages in brief period sincegovernment halted adoptions in summer of 1991 with 4ew toward new adoption restric-tions).

29. See, for example, Tizard, B. Intercountr3’ adoption: A review of the midence. Journal ofChild Psycholo’ and Ps)’chiatm.., (1991) 32.5:743-56 (rex4ew of studies on international adop-tion outcomes concludes "results similar to those found in studies of in-countr?’ adop-tion")" Linowitz, J., and Boothby, N. Cross-cultural placements. In E. Ressler, et al., eds.Unaccompanied children. (New York: 1988), pp, 181. 183-85 (review of the research, findingthat all the major follow-up studies "stress the successful adaptations of most adoptees").Simon, R.J., and Ahstein, H. Intercountr)’ adoption (New "t’b.rk: 199 l) p. 184 ("Studies of in-tercountW adoptees in the United States suggest that children who are adopted as infantsmake positive adjustments to their new environments"1. Feigelman and Silverman’s stud}’of Korean adoptees in the United States dealt with adoptees in their adolescent andyoung adult years, when it is generally thought adoptee identity and other problems arelikely to surface.if they have not before. The study revealed extremel,v successful adjust-ment, with the Korean adoptees measuring as beter adjusted than their white Americancounterparts. Feigelman, W., and Silverman, A. Chosen children (1983) pp. 159-62. Earlierstudies of Korean adoptees had shown consistently high success rates. See note no. 1,Bartholet, Overview, p. 10-20 to 10-21 and nn. 23, 25’ note no. 1, Hague Report, p. 76 and n.118. A major nationwide study undertaken in Denmark dealt with foreign adoptees 19 to

25 years old, and concluded that they had adjusted well to their Danish environment, thatthe great majorig had not been subjected to discrimination, and that they had experi-enced satisfactory, identity, development. M. Rorbech. Mit land erDanmark Copenhagen:Social Forsknings !nstituttet, 1989. English abstract Denmark3,, Countm’ (1990), de-scribed in Hague Report, cited in note no. 1, pp, 76-78. For other major s’tudies, similarlypositive in their findings, see Melchior, T. Adoption in Denmark. In R.A.C. Hoksbergen,ed. Adoption in worldwide perspective (1986), pp. 218-19. Andersson, G. The adopting andadoptedSwedes and their contemporary, society..: In R.A.C. Hoksbergen, ed. Adoption inworldwide perspective, p. 27.

30. See note no. 29, Tizard, pp. 747-51. Thus Feigelman and Silverman found that Colombianchildren with medical problems requiring extensive treatment at the time of adoption,who were raised by U.S. adoptive parents, adjusted "remarkably well" and better overallthan did white children born in the United States and raised by adoptive parents. Seenote no. 29, Feigelman and Silverman, pp. 140--42, 144-45.

3i. See Dalen, M., and Saetersdal, B. Transracial adoption in Norvay. Adoption and Fostering(1987) 11:41-46, as reported in Tizard, cited in note no. 29, pp. 747--48, 749-50. See alsoHarvey, I. Adopdon ofVietnamese children: An Australian stud),, AustralianJournal ofSo-cial Issues (1983) 18,1:55, 59--61, 65-68 (major study of international adoptees in Austra-lia, finding high.rates of adoptive success among Vietnamese adoptees who arrivedsuffering from malnutrition, deprivation, and other traumatic early experiences). The

International Adoption’ Current Status and Future Prospects 103

studies generally indicate that age at placement and pread0ption trauma are the mostpowerful indicators for problems in adoptive adjustment. See note no. 29, Simon and Air-stein, p. 190; note no. 1, Hague Report, p. 78 and nn. 122-24. These studies tend nonethe-less to show that, after some period of time for adjustment, the adoptees and theirfamilies function very well. See note no. 29, Linowitz and Boothby, pp. 183, 185. See alsoHarper, Intercountry adopdon of older children in Australia. Adoption and Fostering(1986) 2:27"28, 30-31.

32. See note no. 29, Tizard, pp. 52-54; note no. 29, Feigelman and Silverman, pp. 141-43, 145,154-62 (indicating that Colombian and Korean adoptees involved had developed limitedsense of id.en.dty with culture of org4n).

33. See note no. 29, Tizard, p. 755..The only-study Tizard. cites as providing such evidence is in-apposite because it is a study inaking some negative findings about the in-country adop-tion of Native children in Canada. (This study has serious methodological problemswhich undercut the significance of its findings in any event. It is reported in Bag.ley, C.Adoption of Native children in Canada: A policy," analysis and a research report, in Simonand ,’-kit.stein, cited in note no. 29, pp. 55-79.) The Feigelman and Silverman study re-ferred to in notes no. 29 and 32 found that the Korean and Colombian adoptees involvedhad high rates of adoptive success.

34. See discussion entitled "The Empirical Studies in chapter 6, Adoption and the role of:race, inBartholet, Family Bonds, cited in note no. 1. See also Bartholet, Race Matching, cited innote no. 2, pp. 1216-21. See generally Silverman in this journal issue.

35. See note no. 29, Rorbech, described in the Hague Report, cited in note no. 1, pp. 76-78. Seealso Register, C. Are those kids yours American families with children adoptedfrom other coun-tries. New York, 1991, pp. 205,207.

36. See note no. 2, Tizard. p. 746.

37. See note.no. 18. See also Ha,e draft Convention model, discussed on page 95 in this article.

38. The adoption studies demonstrate uniformly that delay in placement is a key factor nega-tively affecting.adjustment. See the studies cited in notes no. 29-35.

39. A va.rietT of proposed and existing laws dealing with the restration, recognition, and en-forcement ofjudgments entered by foreign jurisdictions could be looked to as models.New Hampshire has leslation which specifically provides for recognition of a "’ForeignDecree ?fffecting Adoption"" "A decree of court terminating the relationship of parentand child or establishing the relation by adoption issued pursuant.to due process of lawby a court of any otherjurisdiction within or without the United States shall be recog-nized in this state and the rights and obligations of the parties as to matters within the ju-risdiction of this state shall be determined as though the decree was issued by a court ofthis state." New Hampshire RSA Public Safety and Welfare, section 170-B" 23 (1973). Seealso The Uniform Adoption Act (1969. Revised Act), section 17, "Recog-nition of ForeignDecree Affecting Adoption" (same)" Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act(1964 Revised. Act) (providing for filing and enforcement ofjudg-ments entered by othercourts within the United States)" Uniform Foreign Money-Judnents Recognition Act(providing for recognition and enforcement ofjudgments entered by non-U.S, courts).See generally discussion in Carlson, cited in note no. 12, on recognition of foreign de-crees regarding relinquishment and adoption.