Elizabeth Thome

Mrs. Hood and Mr. Jarvis

Senior Seminar

27 March 2007

International Adoption Ethics:

Interpreting Specific Adoption Systems

            Between 1998 and 2005, more than 120,000 internationally adopted children have arrived in the United States (Miller 8).  They come from almost every country around the world to families struggling with the strict domestic adoption system, infertility, or those wanting more children.  Seventy-five percent of incoming children are from China, Russia, Guatemala, and India (Craft, “Top Countries”).  Along with popularity, these countries’ diverse locations and economic instabilities make them the most important to explore in order to understand international adoption issues.  It is important that each country adheres to its own adoption laws and maintains ethicality.  Ethics influence how the child and adoptive parents experience the adoption system.  By exploring the backgrounds of children available, the care the children receive while in orphanages or foster care, medical records, cost of adoption, and who can adopt, the ethics of each country can be evaluated, compared, and used to suggest from which countries different families should adopt.

There are a few terms and reasons for international adoption which are necessary to understand before discussing individual countries.  “Adoption is the process by which a child legally joins a family” (Miller 3).  International adoption is a broad term that applies to children and their adoptive parents who do not share a country of citizenship or nationality.  It is more commonly used than intercountry adoption, which refers to children and parents with different citizenships but the same nationality (Miller 3).  An orphan is a child with both parents deceased, although some countries also allow abandoned and seized children to be considered orphans (“orphan”).  Children who are abandoned are occasionally called foundlings, but the term has been deemed antiquated (Miller 15).  Most children available to American couples, or American children available to foreign couples, are considered orphans. 

Prospective parents have many reasons why they choose to adopt internationally.  Aside from families attracted to international adoption because of ethnic diversity, a majority of international adoptions occur to avoid or escape the domestic adoption system.  Domestic adoptions can be difficult because there are not as many children available in the United States as there are abroad (Espejo, 65).  While there are over forty countries that allow Americans to adopt, domestic adoptions are limited only to the children within the United States.  Meeting the parental qualifications and finding a child who meets specific family requirements can take more than a year.  With international adoption, however, there is an overabundance of available children and a child can be assigned to a family in as little as two to three months (R. Godwin and L. Godwin).

Another advantage to international adoption is the less restrictive requirements on prospective parents.  In domestic adoptions “Many adoption agencies will not place children with single persons or couples who have not been married for several years, adopting parents over a certain age limit, or those of a specific sexual orientation, those who already have children, cannot prove infertility, live in apartments, or practice a particular religion” (Children’s Home).  These discriminations make it very difficult for those who are not the “typical” American couple looking to adopt: married, mid-thirties, infertile, childless, and Christian.  However, there is actually nothing typical about a couple like that, as very few people looking into adoption fit into those standards.  International adoption allows much more freedom.  Singles, those who are older or younger, those who already have children, and sometimes homosexuals are welcome to adopt internationally (R. Godwin and L. Godwin).  International adoption is much more open to the growing number of diverse American families.

While the preceding reasons are often advantages that help people decide, the most important difference to a majority of families is receiving the child.  Even if a family filing for a domestic adoption meets all of the requirements and pays the adoption fees, there is a possibility they will not receive a child.  The growing trend of open and semi-open adoptions allows birth parents to choose the adoptive parents for their child.  A family whose job or marital status, for example, make them not as appealing as other prospective parents on paper can wait indefinitely for a child (R. Godwin and L. Godwin).  Another way to lose a child in domestic adoption is the possibility of the birth mother changing her mind.  In international adoptions the parents are dead or unknown because children who still have family or a possibility of domestic adoption are usually unavailable to American couples.  “The birthmother will not change her mind.  The children available for international adoption must be orphans (as specified in an astoundingly complex legal definition). Once you accept the referral of a child, you will almost certainly become the parent of that child” (“Adoption”).  Unlike in international adoption, birth mothers in domestic adoption have a window called the period of revocation. “This term refers to a period in which birthparents are allowed to change their minds about giving up their child for adoption” (“Domestic Adoption”).  The length varies by state, but it averages around five to six days (Child Welfare Information Gateway).  The child can already be with the adoptive family during that period.  If the birth mother changes her mind, the family will lose the child regardless of their attachment.  Because many prospective parents have already gone through a lot due to infertility or the loss of a child, this period of uncertainty can cause them to choose international adoption.  Before choosing international adoption, however, care must be taken to look into the ethics of the prospective country’s adoption system.

To compare the ethics of each country’s international adoption system, it is important to establish some general criteria.  Ethics are defined by Webster’s Dictionary as “a system of moral principles or the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group…” (“Ethics”).  For adoption, they are the moral criteria that a group or country should follow.  Ethical adoptions are “adoptions that are in the best interest of the child without excess benefits of other participants” (Jenista).  An important area to explore is how the children entered the country’s system.  Are their parents really dead or completely out of the picture?  Were they given up willingly?  Has every step been taken to ensure that the child is legally adoptable and for whatever reason unwanted or unable to live with their natural family?  Answering yes to these questions and disclosing the information to adopting parents contributes to “good” ethics of the country.  It is not ethical for the child to be adopted when the family has not relinquished it. 

Another aspect is the welfare of the child while in custody of the country.  Ethical criteria are based on the care the child receives while in foster care or an orphanage, as it affects the child throughout the rest of their life.  Keeping accurate medical records that are readily available to adopting parents is part of the overall care of the child.  Having high standards of care that are, except in rare cases, met or exceeded help make a system ethical. 

 Motives of a country or adoption agency influence where children come from and the cost to the adopting parents.  When the parents are asked for more money than previously told or are asked to give large donations and bribes to the agency they are adopting through, it raises a red flag.  Dr. Jerri Jenista, an adoption specialist, says that it is very important in an adoption to know “how much money it costs, and where it goes.”  She believes that it is necessary to go beyond the initial cost to understand why the adoption costs what it does.

 Finally, a key factor in a country’s ethicality is the prospective parent criteria.  Each country sets their own.  It determines the age, marital status, health, and financial situation of those wishing to adopt.  India, for example, requires that adoptive parents be a married couple, they be under fifty-five years old, have no history of substance abuse, have three or fewer children, and be married for at least five years (“Children’s Home Society”).  These are just a few of the long list of requirements found in most countries. Are they determined in the best interest of the child or are they set to make adoption easy?  Can the rules be easily bent?  There are many countries where “baby shopping” is allowed.  Parents go to the country and look at many children to find the child they want.  This is not right.  In her book on international adoption, Dawn Davenport writes, “They [agencies and countries] are not looking to fulfill a parent’s burning desire to parent” (18).  The primary reason for adoption should not be to satisfy the parent’s need for a child, but to find a home for an orphaned child. 

Seven thousand nine hundred and six children, about thirty-five percent of all international adoptions in the United States, were adopted from China in 2005 (Craft).  It is by far the largest sending country of children to the United States.  China is considered to have a well developed and lawful adoption process.  A popular informational adoption site, Adoptive Families, says, “China adoption is noteworthy for its orderly adoption process – all aspects of Chinese adoption (including costs and the referral process) are regulated by the China Center for Adoption Affairs (CCAA) in Beijing.  There is no independent adoption from China” (“Adoptive Families”).  Independent adoption leaves too much room for illegal adoption practices.  The uniformly regulated system has helped keep Chinese adoptions fair to all parties involved.

 Most Chinese orphans are girls found after being abandoned by families who later had, or still want, a boy.  In fact, ninety-five percent of children available for adoption are girls (Craft).  Girls are unwanted because they cannot carry on the family name.   Being abandoned is much better than their fate throughout Chinese history.  In a memoir of her life growing up a Chinese girl, Maxine Kingston writes “The midwife or the relative would take the back of a girl baby’s head in her hand and turn her face into the ashes” (Kingston 86).  As there is still a one-child policy in effect in China, they counter the high population of orphaned girls by offering them for foreign adoption.  Healthy boys are rarely available.  The five percent of abandoned boys are “usually disabled or ill or born to an unwed mother” (Miller 50).  Due to the fact that most Chinese babies are given up willingly, it is rare to find children who are not properly relinquished.  Dr. Jenista says that out of China, Russia, Guatemala, and India, China has the most accountability of where the children came from. 

Care within China’s adoption system has dramatically increased over the past two decades.  In the late 1980’s, the infant mortality rate in orphanages climbed to over forty percent (Miller 51).  This was attributed to poor care and overcrowding.  The creation of the CCAA helped to raise standards and equalize care throughout orphanages.  The mortality rate in orphanages is dropping with the introduction of new practices.  “Some children who are slated for adoption are placed in a foster care environment. Other children are placed in a modified institutional care setting in which, during the day, the child spends time in a group setting and later returns to the foster family at night” (“Adoption”).  Foster care and partial foster care socializes children in a family environment.  It also reduces the amount of change for the child during adoption; the child is not being put in a home environment for the first time after the adoption.  Rather, they have been living in one for months prior.  Now China “releases more detailed pre-adoptive medical information, permits healthy children to be adopted by foreigners, and has allowed considerably more transparency to enter the process” (Miller 51).  Medical reports include many physical observations, tests on the senses, and lab results.  While most categories are marked only normal or abnormal, they are considered accurate findings (Miller 84).  Diseases the child has had often scare potential parents and physicians because they are rarely seen in the United States.  Among the most common problems are “Dengue fever, plague, Japanese encephalitis, and malaria” (“Adoption”).  A presence of any illness should be investigated, but most are cured by the time the children are adopted.  Parents and physicians can be reassured by China’s strict policies that prohibit sick children from being placed up for international adoption.

Chinese adoptions have been praised for their consistency in costs.  It ranges from 20,000 to 25,000 USD for each adoption.  This includes paperwork fees, agency costs, traveling to China, and documentation fees (“Adoptive Families”).  It is not just the cost, however, but what the money is for,  “In a Chinese adoption, you know where the money goes” (Jenista).  The heavy regulation of the adoption system by the CCAA keeps lawyers from pocketing money and helps minimize cost variation throughout adoptions.

China is considered to have some of the strictest laws on who can adopt.  This has been done to ensure that adoptions are in the best interest of the child.  Couples must be married for at least two years and there are no single-parent or homosexual adoption allowed.  Both adoptive parents must be between the ages of thirty and fifty, although those between fifty and fifty-five can adopt a special needs child.  Parents who take psychiatric medications are not permitted to adopt.  Also, those with severe face deformities, those who are wheelchair dependent, and those with a Body Mass Index of over forty cannot adopt from China (Craft, “China Adoptions”).  While its requirements may seem highly discriminatory, China’s goal is to find healthy long-term families for its children.

China has a very ethical adoption system.  This is due to a strong centralized adoption system, an increase in orphanage quality and foster care, fairly detailed medical records, regulated costs, and strict laws regarding who can adopt.  Standards have been set high primarily for the children, who are likely to join a stable, well-off family after adoption.  Other countries should impose a CCAA-like organization or use its regulations as a guide to clean up their systems.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, international adoption from Russia has grown significantly.  In 2001, “thirteen times as many children were adopted from Russia as when it was newly independent in 1992” (“International Adoption Facts”).  This was caused by the poor economy as the country shifted from a centrally planned economy to a free market system.  Even today, as the country continues to rebuild, around 600,000 children live without parents in Russia.  The children available for adoption are relinquished, abandoned, or taken from a neglectful home.  Most of the children relinquished are infants born to poverty-stricken mothers.  Ten to 15 percent of Russian orphans have Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, while even more suffer low birth weight and retardation from smoking and drug use by the mother (Miller 55-56).  An abandoned child is placed in a National Registry.  If a family member does not visit it within six months, the child is available for adoption (“Orphans of Russia”).  Therefore, ninety percent are social orphans, children living in an orphanage although they have living family (Miller 54).  Proper relinquishment is difficult with such a short window of time for a family member to locate and visit the child. 

Adoption law within Russia is slowly growing more uniform as bars are being raised.  As of 2000, “the government required accreditation of all foreign adoption agencies in Russia.  Accreditation was offered only to those agencies with five or more years of experience” (Miller 54).  Agency income and tax statements are now required to be reviewed regularly.  These laws helped reduce corruption, child-selling, and other illegal adoption activities (Miller 54).  It is a step in the right direction for Russian adoption.

While the system has become more uniform, Russian orphans are still suffering from inadequate medical and emotional care.  Foster care is rare and most children live in baby homes or orphanages.  After orphanage conditions became apparent globally, it was discovered that “some orphanages have far less than 50 U.S. cents per day to feed each child” (Miller 54).  There are also few caregivers, meaning the children receive very little interaction and emotional support.  Red Cross explored the conditions in 2000 and painted the world a horrific picture.  “The stories are well known, kids tied to benches, lying immobile or tethered on urine-soaked sheets, corralled into wooden pens in the height of winter, beaten, starved, abandoned” (Lowry).  The Red Cross also found lying-down rooms, where children considered disabled are fed but denied stimulation and medical care.  This is not to say that all Russian orphans suffer these conditions.  There are many orphanages that have enough food, well-trained staff, and few children per caregiver (Miller 54).  Overall, however, Russian orphans fall considerably below American children of the same age.  Every five months in a Russian orphanage causes one month of linear growth delay.  A thirty-two month old adopted Russian boy fell just above the twenty-fifth percentile for weight and head circumference, but he was below the third percentile in height (height of an eighteen month-old American child) (Miller 157-158).  The longer a child lives within the orphanage, the more they fall behind because of poor nutrition, stimulus, and education.  In children adopted by Americans from Eastern European countries, seventy percent have gross motor skill delays, eighty-two percent have fine motor skill delays, and fifty-nine percent have language delays (Miller 199).  Inadequate care while in orphanages is leaving adopted Russian children in the United States far behind their American peers. 

 “Medical records from the former Soviet Union have been some of the most confusing and difficult to evaluate” (Miller 77).  The records the prospective families receive are usually only excerpts or summaries of the child’s medical history.  Medical reports often do not include dates of tests and observations, causing it to be difficult to determine when a problem occurred and whether it still affects the child to be very difficult.  General terms such as Oligophrenia categorize children as retarded (they are denied the right to vote and drive) when in reality many are only lacking education (“Common Medical”).  A large number of terms used in Russian records are unknown to American doctors and are hard to translate.  Also, maternal drug, alcohol, and tobacco use are not usually addressed in medical reports, even when the child displays obvious signs like low birth weight (Miller 77).  The difficulties in understanding records scare prospective parents, but they should not worry too much.  Many diagnoses made by Russian physicians are just natural abnormalities found in children.                                                           
           Russian adoption cost ranges from between 25,000 to more than 40,000 USD (Curry; “Adoptive Families”).  It is more expensive than most because Russia requires that two trips totaling at least three weeks must be made to the country by at least one adoptive parent (Miller 137).  The large difference in cost is remnant of the older, less regulated system where bribes and costs set by corrupt officials caused cost discrepancies.  Much of the extra cost comes from orphanages begging for, or requiring, large donations.  This is now illegal and steadily declining (Miller 54).  Within the next few years, costs should become more uniform and equal to all adoptions in Russia.

Aside from the large number of children available, Russia is popular in international adoption because a wide range of people can adopt.  Married couples and singles over twenty-five and under fifty-five are eligible.  Couples with previous biological or adopted children, regardless of how many, also qualify.  Parents can choose gender and age of the child they are adopting.  Many requirements, such as marriage length and age, are flexible on a case-to-case basis (Children’s Home).  Medical records of prospective parents are reviewed in each case, but parents are only judged on their ability to care for a child while dealing with medical conditions.  Possibly disqualifying medical conditions for parents include “TB, active and chronic; illness of internal organs and nervous system; dysfunction of the limbs; infectious diseases; drug and alcohol addictions; psychiatric disorders; and, any disability which prevents the person from working” (“Intercountry Adoption”).  The fewer restrictions are due to the country’s need to find families for the huge orphanaed population.  

Russia’s adoption system has been notoriously unethical.  Many children are not properly relinquished and therefore they are being sent to other countries when they still have a family.  The inadiquacey of orphanages and medical records make adjustment to life in the United States for adopted children difficult and scary to new parents.  In orphanages children are not taught social skills necessary for normal life in any country.  Other contributers to Russia being considered unethical are cost and flexibility.  The cost of adoption is unregulated, causing one family to pay as much as 15,000 USD more than another.  The flexibility allowed to families is part of this cost variation.  Unwanted children are less expensive to adopt and rules are bent to find them a family.  While this can be good, it can also put a child in an unstable or improper home.  Medical and financial requirements have been waved many times, which is not in the best interest of the child.  The combination of the previous problems creates a very unethical adoption system in Russia.

With over fifty-six percent of the population below the poverty line and a median age of 18.9, Guatemala has become a hot spot for international adoption (“Guatemala”).  The number of Guatemalan children adopted by United States citizens has steadily increased from 2,219 in 2002 to 4, 135 in 2006 (“Adoptive Families”).  Caution must be used, though, because there is a lack of national regulation for adoption in Guatemala.  As of 2007, “Guatemala does not have a central authority to oversee adoptions” (Miller 60).  All adoptions are privately arranged through local attorneys.  This has created an array of problems surrounding Guatemalan adoption.                                                                            
Prospective parents are attracted to Guatemala by the availability of infants and the foster care system.  Children under one year old compromise seventy-nine percent of all adoptions (“Adoptive Families”).  However, how these children are entering the adoption system is questionable.  These babies usually come from poor, unwed teenage mothers, but it has come to light recently that bribes, threats, and even deaths are connected with many mother’s decisions.  Baby-selling has erupted as a lucrative market.  A Guatemalan taxi driver, Gustavo Tobar, told reporters that his two sons were taken on false abuse allegations and adopted abroad.  In other cases, jaladoras (baby brokers) “start off by offering to pay the expectant mother’s medical bills and to provide them with economic support, and in some cases they eventually deceive the pregnant women into signing a blank paper, who thus unknowingly authorize the adoption of their child” (“Rights”).  The “blank” paper they sign is actually the required relinquishment document that all birth mothers must sign.  Adoption lawyers have countered claim that mothers are forced or tricked into relinquishing their child by pointing out the required DNA tests that mothers and children must have to make sure they are related (Miller 59).  These measures do not help, however, when the mother is illiterate, as is about thirty-seven percent of the female population of Guatemala, or coerced into signing (“Guatemala”).  It is not right to take children from one family and place them in another in order to make money.  There have even been reports of mothers forced or paid to get pregnant and put a baby up for adoption, earning Guatemala the nickname “baby factory” (“Rights”).  Warnings have been put out across the United States to be wary of Guatemalan adoption.

 A majority of Guatemalan children reside in foster care.  Foster care is the ideal situation for an orphaned child.  It provides a family environment with one-on-one attention and usually proper medical care and nutrition.  In a study of 103 adopted Guatemalan children in the United States, “children from foster care had significantly better z-scores for height, weight, and head circumference that those from orphanage or mixed care” (Chan et al.).  A z-score is where one falls in a percentage range. A higher z score on head circumference means those in foster care on average had a greater circumference than those in an orphanage.  There are also many children in orphanages, but they are rarely adopted.  “Over 300 orphanages exist in the country, but few children are ever adopted because of the lengthy times it takes for an infant to be declared abandoned and eligible for adoption” (Miller 60).  Babies who have been signed over by their birth mother can be placed much faster than those who are not signed over so adopting from a Guatemalan orphanage is an unpopular choice.

Although little time is spent in foster care (Guatemalan babies are very easy to place) for most children and the children are generally healthy, not much is known about their medical history.  “From Guatemala, we typically get a one-line statement saying the baby was seen, and is healthy,” said Dr. Jenista in an interview with New York Times (Tuller). In a large majority of Guatemalan orphans, “young infants have scant medical records, with minimal birth information, a physical examination, and basic blood tests (CBC, syphilis, HIV)” (Miller 83).  The issue is not so much the current health, though, but the need for accurate and detailed records to help physicians with future problems.

Cost of Guatemalan adoptions varies based largely on the private nature of the adoption.  Because there are no regulations set, a lawyer can charge whatever they would like.  The predicted range is between 25,000 and 30,000 USD.  Much of this money can go to bribes and other things not associated with the adoption itself.  For example, if a Guatemalan adoption cost 30,000 USD, it is possible that up to 18,000 USD of that goes to the lawyer’s pocket (Jenista).  A portion of the cost may also go to pay the birth mother for giving up her child.
               To increase adoption, which has become an industry for the country, Guatemala has continued to have few criteria for prospective families.  “Under Guatemalan law, prospective adoptive parents may be married or single and must be at least 18 years old.  There are no requirements for an age-difference between the prospective adoptive parent and the child.  There are also no disqualifying medical ineligibilities” (“Intercountry Adoption”).  Essentially every adult American citizen can adopt from Guatemala with these requirments.  This is not in the best interest of the child.  A certain amount of medical conditions, such as phyciatric diagnoses, should be disclosed to the country to determine whether the prospective parent is fit to raise a child.  There is no limit to the number of children an American family can already have or adopt (Tuller).  Therefore, financial statements should also be looked at to ensure that the family has enough money to support the child long-term.  

As popularity for Guatemalan children grows in the United States, the poor ethics of Guatemala’s adoption system becomes more apparent.  Compared with China, Russia, and India, it is considered the most unethical system (Jenista).  No federal laws and regulations make adoption unsafe for the child and its prospective family.  The family or the child could be unfit for adoption, yet because medical records are not needed to adopt and poorly done for the children, this is unknown.  Also, the family can be over-charged and made to pay brides to lawyers and birthmothers.  A DNA test requirment and signed relinquishment form are not a safe guard.  Coersion devalidates both of these protective measures.  The biggest red flag in Guatemalan adoption is the uncertainty of how the child was aquired.  Even though most children are given a better life (financially and medically) in the United States, it is always wrong for them to be taken unwillingly from their mothers.  It is in the children’s best interest to stay with their birth family unless there is no other option.  With these problems plauging their system, Guatemala can easily be deemed unethical.       

Three hundred twenty-three children were adopted from India to the United States in 2005 (Children’s Home).  “Because of economic conditions, many children are relinquished to orphanages by parents who are unable to provide for them” (“India Adoption Requirements”).  Poverty and a social stigma against unwed mothers have continued to perpetuate adoption in a country where religion does not approve.  In the Hindu religion, which comprises eighty percent of the population, there are no provisions for non-Hindu adoption.  The child must be taken to the United States to legally be adopted (“India Adoption”).  There is still much regulation in the country.  “India has established a governmental body that regulates adoptions. Only agencies approved by India’s central government may place children, and only agencies enlisted by India’s central government may receive children for their applicant families” (Children’s Home”).  This keeps children and the families adopting them safe by eliminating fraudulent agencies and child-trafficking. 

Indian orphans reside mainly in orphanages.  Foster care is rare and quality of living differs greatly among orphanages (“India Adoption”).  Little is known about the medical history of children before they enter an orphanage.  Orphanages in poor or rural areas lack much of the supplies they need and may not have enough food, staff, clothing, and housing (Erichsen H. and Erichsen J). 

Once in an orphanage (regardless of quality of other care), however, excellent records are kept.  India orphanage medical records “provide extensive material for review.  This may include information about the circumstances by which the child entered care, the child’s physical condition, developmental information, intercurrent illnesses and hospitalizations, x-ray reports, laboratory tests…results of testing for hepatitis B, HIV, and syphilis are usually included” (Miller 81-82).  This information is extremely helpful for physicians and future parents. 

Many different cost ranges are available for Indian adoption.  While “Adoptive Families,” an adoption magazine, estimates around 20,000 USD, others say it is much lower or higher.  Adoption.com (a popular adoption informational site) said “you should probably plan on the agency fee costing anywhere from 7,500 to 30,000 USD.  Some adoption agencies may lower their fees for families adopting older or special needs children and for lower income families. They will also typically lower their fees for adopting multiple children at a time or for repeat clients”.  These are good incentives to motivate Indian adoption, but they send the wrong message.  Those hard to place are just “sold” cheaper.  Reasons for cost difference are usually due to the specific agency used and travel expenses. 
                   Prospective parents in Indian adoption must meet many requirements.  Figuring out eligible ages among couples can be tough.  “For married couples, the minimum age is 21, but their combined ages can be no more than 90 years older than the age of the child they are adopting” (Children’s Hope).  This helps ensure that both parents will be around long-term for the adopted child.  Also, couples must be married for two years (single women can adopt, but with even stricter guidelines), with no more than two divorces, and have proof of infertility.  One parent must be a United States citizen and they can have no more than two other children (“India Adoption Requirements”).  Financial statements are compulsory to demonstrate that prospective parents can support the child.  Stringent requirements help assure Indian adoption officials that the adoption is in the best interest of the child and is a life-long placement.

Determining India’s adoption system ethicality is difficult.  While there are strict laws for the adopting parents and excellent medical records for the child, there are some questionable areas.  Legal adoption cannot occur until the child is in the United States.  This leaves room for problems with visas, family circumstance changes, and poor communication.  Reforms should be made to make the child a legal member of their adoptive family before they leave India.  Orphanage care and inequality further lowers ethicality.  Poor care has a permanent effect on a child’s life.  Their growth and development is stunted with inadequate nutrition and interaction.  As orphanage quality varies immensely, it is hard for families to prepare for the adjustment and problems facing a new child.  Overall, Indian adoption is fairly ethical.  There are a few problems that require change, but the adoptions are generally in the best interest of the child and fair to the family.

Using the ethicality of each country, recommendations which countries are better for certain families and reasons for adoption can be made.  For a family looking to adopt from the most ethical country, China is the best choice.  They are highly regulated and have increasingly good orphanage conditions.  Guatemala is by far the least ethical because they are horribly unregulated and have a large amount of illegal adoptions.  Parents who want the best chance of getting a healthy child, however, should choose Guatemala, as they reside in foster care and usually enter it shortly after birth.  If cost is the deciding factor, China and sometimes India (cost varies) are the best option.  Some families want a child who will need little adjustment to their new family.  India and Russia are not a good choice for them because most of the children have never resided in a family setting.  Children from China are introduced to a family-style environment before adoption to ease the amount of change on the child, and Guatemalan children almost always live in foster care.  They generally have the least amount of adjustment trouble (Jenista).  While a majority of parents make their decision based on the child, there are some that simply must choose the system that lets them adopt.  If a family has a difficult financial and medical history or has other family-related factors (marriage and divorce, other children) influencing their eligibility, they may want to choose Guatemala or Russia.  Guatemala adoptions are the most open to unusual circumstances as long as the family currently has enough money for the adoption. Different countries are best for different reasons for adoption and it is important for families to explore this before starting the adoption process.  It lessens the “bumps” along the way, increasing the likelihood of a successful adoption. 
                  Looking at the backgrounds of children available, the care of the children while in the adoption system, the cost of adoption, and who can adopt enables ethics to be evaluated, compared, and used to advise prospective families on which country they should adopt from.  Adoption is a great way to provide orphaned children with a stable environment and life-long support.  When the focus shifts from the child’s welfare, though, adoptions can do more harm than good.  It is vital when adopting that the prospective parents fully understand how they are receiving their child.  World-wide adoption movements are helping by raising awareness and the need for reform. 

Works Cited

Adoption.  2007. Children’s Hope International. 16 Feb. 2007 <http://international.adoption.com/>.

“Adoption Requirements.” Adoption Services. 12 Mar. 2007 <http://www.adoptionservices.org/adoption/adoption_requirements.htm>.

“Adoptive Families.” Caughman, Susan. 2007. 11 Apr. 2007. <http://www.adoptivefamilies.com/>.

Chan, Wilma, Laurie Miller, Kathleen Comfort, and Linda Tirella. “Health of Children Adopted From Guatemala: Comparison of Orphanage and Foster Care.” Pediatrics. 115 (2005). 12 April 2007 <http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/115/e710>.

Child Welfare Information Gateway. “Consent to Adoption.” Child Welfare Information Gateway. 2004. 26 Apr. 2007 <http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/consent.cfm>.

Children’s Home Society and Family Services. 2006. 28 Mar. 2007 < http://childrenshomeadopt.org/>.

“Common Medical Report Problems.” Adoptions From Russia – Russian Adoption Medical Services. 18 May 2002. 16 Feb. 2007 <http://www.russianadoption.org/topten.htm>.

Craft, Carry. “China Adoptions: General Requirements for China Adoptions.” About. 12 April 2007 <http://adoption.about.com/od/international/ss/walkthroughchin.htm>.

---“What are the top 20 countries being adopted from in 2005?” About. 15 March 2007 <http://adoption.about.com/od/statistic1/f/2005visas.htm>.

Curry, Pat. “Tax Breaks Help Cut Staggering Adoption Costs.” Bankrate. 13 Jan. 2003. 10 Apr. 2007 <http://www.bankrate.com/brm/itax/news/20010703a.asp>.

Davenport, Dawn. The Complete Book of International Adoption. Broadway Books: New York, 2006.

Erichsen, Heino R., and Jean Nelson-Erichsen. How to Adopt Internationally; A Guide  for Agency-Directed and Independent Adoption. Fort Worth: Mesa House Publishing, 2000.

Espejo, Roman. Adoption Opposing Viewpoints. Green Haven Press Inc., 2002.

“Ethics.” Webster’s New Universal Unbridged Dictionary.  1996.

Godwin, Raymond, and Laura Beauvais-Godwin. The Complete About: Everything You Need to Know to Adopt A Child. Holbrook: Adams Media Corporation, 2000.

“Guatemala.” The World Factbook. 15 Mar. 2007. Central Intelligence Agency. 18

Mar. 2007 <https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gt.html>.

 “India Adoption.” Adoption. Commonwealth Adoptions International. 13 Apr. 2007 <http://india.adoption.com/>.

 “India Adoption.” Children’s Hope International. 10 Apr. 2007 <http://www.childrenshopeint.org/India.htm>.

“Intercountry Adoption: Russian Federation.” U.S. Department of State. Apr. 2006. 12 Feb. 2007 <http://travel.state.gov/family/adoption/country/country_441.html>.

“International Adoption Facts.” Adoption Institute. 14 March 2007 <http://www.adoptioninstitute.org/FactOverview/international.html#27>.

Jenista, Jerri. Personal interview. 19 Mar. 2007.

Lowry, Joe. “In Action: Inside Russia’s Orphanages.” The Magazine of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. 2000: 1. 10 Apr. 2007 <http://www.redcross.int/EN/mag/magazine2000_1/voyage_en.html>.

Miller, Laurie C. The Handbook of International Adoption Medicine: A Guide for

            Physicians, Parents, and Providers. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

“Orphan.” Webster’s New Universal Unbridged Dictionary. 1996.

“Orphans of Russia.” A Child’s Desire. 12 Apr. 2007 <http://www.achildsdesire.org/russianadopt.htm>.

“Rights: The Dark Side of Guatemala’s ‘Baby Factory.’” The Online Pioneer and Ideals – World News. 16 Feb. 2007. 12 Mar. 2007 <http://ins.onlinedemocracy.ca/index.php?name=News&file=articale&sid=8502.

Tuller, David. “Adoption Medicine: A New Specialty.” Adoptive families. 12 Apr. 2007 < http://www.adoptivefamilies.com/articles.php?aid=688>.