Sir, - Francis McGeough, chairman of the International Adoption Association (November 20th) invites me to substantiate allegations of "paedophilia" and "ethnic cleansing" in relation to international adoptive parents. I wasn't aware that I had made such allegations and regret that such a construction has been put on my letter. However, Mr McGeough's concern is indicative of the acute sensitivities associated with the issue of foreign adoptions, which straddles child care and ethnicity.
Modern Western concerns with legal adoption date from the 19th century, when child protection became a major social and legal issue. The emphasis on social workers rigorously assessing prospective adoptive parents originates from a public demand to protect children from abuse and paedophilia and to ensure that substitute care meets the highest standards.
The infertility of some adoptive parents makes such assessments by social workers highly sensitive. But, in a society that has been in recent years convulsed by reports of paedophilia and abuse of children in care, assessment cannot be regarded as surprising. O'Shaughnessy (1994), in an impressive study entitled "Adoption, Social Work and Social Theory", reviewed the issues relating to foreign adoptions, using United Nations sources. He noted UN agencies' concerns regarding the fees paid for foreign adoptions, estimated at between $5,000 and $30,000 - "sums which suggest that the humanitarian impulse which motivated inter-country adoptions at the end of the second [world] war is all but dead .. ." In fairness, the adoptive parents point out that they have no choice but to meet the administrative and legal costs.
The UN found disturbing evidence of baby farming and child trafficking associated with some private foreign adoptions. It also noted other major drawbacks to foreign adoptions including difficulties in determining reasons for the adoption, uncertainty about parental consent, and incomplete or incorrect information on the child's health, which may cause subsequent problems for both the child and the adoptive parents. Moreover, there are even more profound concerns: genealogical bewilderment and identity crises for the children; the pain of the birth mother at her loss; and the chronic insecurity experienced by some adoptive parents, particularly when the legalities are uncertain.
In conclusion, I understand that some advocates of foreign adoptions may favour greater privatisation and deregulation. This would, in my view, be disastrous because it would further exacerbate the legitimate public concerns about the potential for child trafficking. On the contrary, I would suggest that there needs to be tighter state regulation and closer international co-operation, as envisaged in the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect of Inter-country Adoption and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. This is for the sake of the children concerned, the prospective adoptive parents, the birth parents and all who favour social justice and children's rights in this complex area of human, ethnic and international relationships. - Yours, etc., Prof Fred Powell,
Department of Applied Social Studies, University College Cork.