Is International Adoption the Right Response?

I just found this blog a few months ago in one of those I know somebody, who knows somebody who is following this blog moments.   I have so enjoyed the posts related to adoption simply because they are thoughtful and also reflect a desire to parent from a Godly perspective.  Every Tuesday, the blog features an adoption related question.

This week, the question addresses the question of if international adoption is the correct response to global poverty/the orphan crisis.  The discussion that has occurred in the comments section is full of so much wisdom and really addresses the issues that people need to understand when asking if adoption is a correct response.  This question is one that I'm not sure we considered when we started our adoptions.  It seemed like common sense to me that if there were kids sitting somewhere that did not have a family, then providing them with a family was the right thing to do.  But as our adoption journey has progressed, I've had to do a little more thinking about my viewpoint.  We've of course had people question why we would choose to adopt internationally instead of adopting from the United States.  We've found ourselves gaining new perspectives and looking at the ethics of adoption in a new way.  And of course, we've heard the line "if people would just give all the money they spend on international adoption to specific families, then those families could stay together and adoption would not be necessary."

It's that last statement that probably stuck in my craw the most.  Were my good intentions wrong?  Was I misusing the money God had given me?  Will my child come to resent the fact that we spent a large amount of money on an international adoption rather than giving that money to his or her birth family so that they could stay together? 

I've come to the conclusion that, for my two children, international adoption was the right response.  Is it the right response for every child?  No.  But my two were in orphanage care before we came along.  They were placed in orphanage care for many of the same reasons that young, unwed mothers in the U.S. place their babies for adoption.  We would never tell these young American moms that they must choose to parent their children; instead we respect that they were brave enough and strong enough to make such a difficult decision.  We owe it to women around the globe to honor and respect their choices.  Of course, not all international adoptions are ethical.  And that is wrong and should be addressed. 

I also think it is important to recognize what it means to prohibit international adoption for those children in orphanage care.  An institution, no matter how good, is not a family.  Children deserve to be the special faces in someone's wallet.  Children deserve to have someone who hangs their artwork on the refrigerator.  Children deserve permanency.  Children also deserve opportunities.  Many children in orphanage care do not have opportunities for education or adequete health care.  Those alone are not reasons for a child to be placed but they are considerations. 

Many countries that are viewed as supplying countries in the international adoption equation are literally hemoraging needy children.  Someone who has sustained major trauma would never treated with only one method.  Imagine a doctor looking at a car crash victim who has major head trauma, a broken leg, internal bleeding, and facial lacerations and simply applying a band aid or only casting the leg or plunging ahead into surgery and ignoring all other injuries?  Massive injuries require multiple responses.  Countries who have massive injuries to their families need multiple responses.  International adoption is one response.  Encouraging education and teaching business skills so that families can support themselves is another.  Working to provide clean drinking water and adequate food is another.  Addressing cultural issues which limit women in their ability to provide for their families, encourage domestic violence, or do not allow women to say no to sex or prevent pregnancy is another.  Setting up government infustructures which support families and protect children is another.  The list goes on and on.  Addressing the orphan crisis means a lot of things, all of which are useful and serve a role.

So back to that original statement that bugged me the most.  Wouldn't it have been better to send my money to a family so that they could stay together?  The flaw in that is assuming that money fixes all problems.  Money does not fix all problems.  Yes, money certainly has the potential to positively impact a family.  But it does not change the fact that there are families who have been devestated by absentee or deceased fathers and mothers.  It does not change the fact that you are a teenage mom who does not have the life experience necessary to successfully parent.  It does not change the fact that families live trapped in cycles of domestic violence, drug abuse, or mental illness.  It does not change the fact that you have no education, may be illiterate and have no idea of how to manage money in order to support your family over the long term.  There are certainly families in Haiti who could benefit from a hand up and money might be a part of this.  But there are also families in Haiti for whom a mass infusion of money into their family situation would do nothing but bring temporary relief to only a few of their problems. 

Is international adoption the right response?  Yes.  Is it always the right response?  No.  Should it continue to be an option for birth families and one way for people to respond?  Most definitely.