UNICEF's Real Position on Inter-country Adoption

I recently got drawn into a passionate debate on a friend's Facebook page about whether or not UNICEF harbors a real but hidden agenda of opposition to inter-country adoption. I personally believe that the only reason that UNICEF doesn't openly and officially oppose inter-country adoption is the fear of political push back from the US and other Western nations whose citizens adopt thousands of children from the developing world each year.

What do you think about this blog post from Andrea Poe at The Washington Times? Poe writes:

 

What’s so disappointing about UNICEF’s position is that for years the organization has been a leader in child welfare around the world.  The work that they do to help feed and immunize children is unimpeachable.  And perhaps this is the problem.  The organization’s success in this area has jaundiced UNICEF’s view on adoption.

Arbitrary national borders on a map have become a greater priority to UNICEF than the complicated issues of placing children with safe, loving families wherever those families may be. 

UNICEF has repeatedly stated that it prefers the expansion of social welfare programs for poor families within countries, so that children can stay in kinship groups.  The practical outcome has been that unparented children are being denied the best homes so that UNICEF can score cheap points in the international arena about the insufficient aid poor countries receive.  The pawns here are the children.

Harvard Law School’s Elizabeth Bartholet, an adoptive parent herself and a well-regarded child advocate, has publicly stated that “international adoption is under siege,” largely because of UNICEF’s unrelenting assault on inter-country adoption. 

In Batholet’s paper International Adoption: The Human Rights Position she writes, “Preferences for what UNICEF calls permanent family or foster care [in country] are dangerous. UNICEF’s argument is that such care could preserve children’s birth and national heritage links. But foster care doesn’t exist as a meaningful option in most sending countries – unparented children are instead relegated to orphanages. UNICEF wants foster care expanded, but denying children adoptive homes now because in the future foster care might exist is unfair to existing children.”

The influence of UNICEF on the world community cannot be overstated.  It has used its reputation as a leader in children welfare to lobby countries, including the United States, to reduce the number of inter-country adoptions.  The results have had dire consequences for children around the world. 

 

UNICEF's effective attack on inter-country adoption | Washington Times Communities.

Comments

[Christopher de Bono]

We are grateful to Andrea Poe for recognizing the value of UNICEF's immunization work around the world. Unfortunately, however, her column misrepresents UNICEF’s position on intercountry adoption. UNICEF supports intercountry adoption as one permanent care option for children in need. We have never sought to reduce the number of intercountry adoptions. In fact, we have provided help to national authorities and others to improve the efficiency of ethical intercountry adoption processes. And we are well aware that international adoptions have provided loving homes for many children.

Our first priority is greater support for families in need, so no mother ever feels forced by poverty or insecurity to give up a child she loves. Where adoptive care is the best option, we believe the best interest of each child must be the primary motive for all decisions. Adoption processes should be carried out in an ethical, transparent and legal manner because that is in the best interest of the children and also of adopting families.

We encourage your readers to look at our position, available on our website, at http://www.unicef.org/media/media_41918.html.

Christopher de Bono
Spokesperson, UNICEF

[Sharon]

Hi Christopher,

Thanks for stopping by my blog.

I may not agree with everything Andrea Poe has to say, but I do believe that despite its stated policy of support of adoption in appropriate circumstances, as a large organization with many moving parts, at times UNICEF both actively and inadvertently opposes inter-country adoptions that meet its own written standards of appropriateness. I base this on my own personal experience as an adoptive parent who had direct interactions with UNICEF staff in India in 2002-03. The UNICEF workers were all lovely people, but attitudes toward adoption among them varied, and in many cases revealed bias against the adoption option. I need to write a post describing what happened in more detail. I hope you'll come back to take a look.