Talk:International adoption

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacement (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Adoption, fostering, orphan care and displacement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of issues surrounding adoption, foster care, child abandonment, and bereavement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

External links[edit]

This page seems to have been badly hit by adverts for adoption agencies. Legitimate, licensed and registered agencies will already be listed on general adoption websites. I'm adding the "Cleanup-spam" tag to the section and removing adverts for agencies, while leaving general adoption-related sites (not specific to a particular agency). Bastun 23:21, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


Hasn't Ukraine recently stopped international adoptions? Will check when I have more time and if it is the case, remove Ukraine from the agencies section. Bastun 21:58, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed Ukraine from the agencies section, as per this report: Bastun 12:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

This report does not come up. My wife and I have just went to the Ukraine and adopted a child. I do not know what these comments are based upon. Wikipedia should not be adding to the confusion.--Getaway 18:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
First, congratulations :-) Second - the information was correct at the time (October 2005). That link isn't working for me either, but this one explains the background. International adoption rules and practices aren't static - for instance, my own country has just banned adoptions from Guatemala. Editors can only go on the information available to them and I would strongly urge anyone involved in adoption not to rely on a general online resource. Regards, BastunBaStun not BaTsun 19:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Child Trafficing section[edit]

This section needs work. It doesn't actually contain any information about child trafficing. The claim about "impoverishment of the third world by rich nations by adopting poor nations’ children" doesn't have anything to do with child trafficing, and I question whether or not this does actually make poor nations more poor.--RLent 16:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


It seems that the section on "consequences" is purely negative. In keeping with Wikipedia's unbiased policy, does anyone care if I add some of the POSITIVE consequences of international adoption?

more facts, less polemic[edit]

Hi folks -

the sections on impact of international adoption on a child's cultural awareness and sense of identity are worthy of thoughtful discussion and links. I hope to posta lot more in these section shortly.

However, the links presented re: child trafficking) are better handled in a separate section devoted to that topic. Most international adopton is NOT child trafficking, but rather a process that is regulated both at the state, national,and now international level (Hague Treaty). To have the only external links go to legal research by 1 single attorney with the point of view that all international adoption is a cultural crime at best, and child trafficking at worst is just plain silly.

Also, speaking about what "countries" think of US adoption is silly. Countries do not have feelings -they eithr allow adoption or not. Clearly countires that allow internationla adoption have approved it as a legal and ethical process - so no need to tell us how large geographic territories feel.

This whole article really needs a lot more facts that woudl be useful for researchers, prospective adoptive parents, and adoptees - and less agenda...

just my 2 cents,kopecks, centavos, etc... porkchop32

09:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Porkchop32 (talkcontribs) 09:47, 6 February 2007


"International adoption refers to adopting a child from a foreign country. International adoption may offer a permanent family to a child (from a country other than that of the adoptive parents) whose birth parents have permanently terminated their parental rights."

Not all termination of rights is or was voluntary, sometimes a relative gives up the child, or the adoption agencies scam the parents into thinking it's only temporary and then say that the parent has given up the rights to their child. There are two specific cases I know where a grandmother sold her grandchild without the knowledge of her parents to an adoption agency. I also know a case where the adoption agency promised to take care of the child for a while, hold them until the parent was sure, but the time the parent came back the child was gone. So it's not always voluntary--idealistically it is, but realistically it isn't.

In addition, International adoptee redirects here, but this section has poor representation of what an adoptee is and what it's like to be adopted. It has theories, but lacks actual experiences. It's also Korean-heavy despite the fact that there are other countries of adoption, such as Russia, China (the leader these days) India, etc. It should be representative of the countries it's trying to present.

Topics to cover are issues of identity (links back to sociological studies of identity), cultural issues, and even finding out that the majority of countries hold the responsibility of raising a child by FAMILY not mother... also what I term reverse culture shock--that is being shocked into the culture they were adopted into and then being shocked back. I'd also like to see more on policies from countries that require keeping names, keeping cultural values, and additional requirements of international adoption. My own parents had to take lessons before adopting me in 1985. (from Korea)

Also something on those Korean culture camps which often emphasize separating one from their birth/natural parents and even give a false awareness of Korean culture should also be considered-- that is to present both sides for a NPOV. (i.e. do they help or hinder and both sides that argue this.) Other culture camps too.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

      • NOTE *** I have SO-O-O-O much to say to all of this, that I could write my own book and then some... But for starters... ...just visit me at: and feel free to email me at: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Problems with Hague Convention section[edit]

The part concerning the Hague convention seems extremely one sided and the citation is to an adoption agency, which doesn't contain the information in the article. I think the entire section concerning the downsides of the convention should be removed until a well informed and unbiased author can provide a less biased explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

This article only talks about U.S. adoptions[edit]

There are no examples about other countries adopting children. This article only gives numerous examples of the U.S. adopting children from various countries. For example, do other countries ever adopt U.S. orphans?Jimhoward72 (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

IHEID IA039_ the group project of improving this page[edit]

I noted with appreciation the part on Asia, including the legal framework. Great work! Perhaps there is room for improvement in discussing Taiwan's non-signatory status to the Hague Adoption Convention? Is it political, because of Taiwan's disputed status? Or are there domestic reasons (such as legislative bottlenecks, or disagreement over treaty language) that explain Taiwan's absence? --User:davegert —Preceding undated comment added 13:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed David has uploaded his part, great job!

Yet I have 2 suggestions:

  • Maybe the US law should come after the international framework (i.e. Hague Convention)??
Indented line

Thank you for this input. Do you think we should start a new section after the International Legal framework to address our regional focci (ie Domestic Legal Implementation/Considerations or Domestic Legal Orders pertaining to International Adoption)? Davegert (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)User:davegert

  • the citation seems not work, I would like to correct it

Yes David, I like the idea of having another title to introduce our findings on Europe, U.S., Asia and Africa (what do you think about something like: Regional and Domestic Legal Orders?) (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Caroprand (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see the discussion here. I do agree we should start a new section titled with "Regional and Domestic Legal Orders" or others if you could think up with. I will first set up the section first. Azurezhan (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

One more question about structure: Since we are working on the framework of the US, Asia, Africa and Europe, what sequence should we follow? Any idea?

Indented line I think we should go alphabetically. Should we consider the US as part of North America, with room for expansion? Then it would be Africa, Asia, Europe, North America. I will look into making the US part more coherent with the US process section.

Davegert (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)User:davegert

Thanks. Alphabetically is great. And yes, US should be part of North America so we don't exclude Canada. Azurezhan (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I would now put the Asian part up.

Azurezhan (talk) 09:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear all, I've added the part of positive consequences, as well as origin and receiving countries. Welcome your comment.

According to TA's advice, I plan to remove all those paragraphs labelled with "citation needed" by the end of this week, if none of us has found the source. Feel free to update.

Azurezhan (talk) 16:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hanjie: Let's delete the 'citation needed' thing later on, I am planning to go through all those points and trying to find some references.

Good job with the Asian section!. Very clear and precise. Just some comments: under the China section, sixth line: I think you probably wanted to write "issues" rather than "issue". In the section "Gender ratio", shall we talk about "sex ratio" rather than "gender"? What do you think? And, you wrote "more girls than than", did you mean "than boys"? (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Caroprand (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Carolina: Thanks for the suggestion. Sorry that I posted too early before I had done any proofreading . I will correct them and be more concise. Azurezhan (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

David, I love your section! It really provides with very concrete and helpful information. One suggestion: what about trying to incorporate what has been written in the section "Process Overview" about the US case in your section? (in order to avoid having info on US policies and practices spread all over the article) (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Caroprand (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Indented line
Indented line Carolina, that is a good idea. I will try to see how I can streamline the sections on US process and US int'l law. Davegert (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)User:davegert

Also in the sub-section "outgoing children", first line, it is not that clear to me what you mean in this very first sentence "...Convention case"? (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Caroprand (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Indented line Outgoing children means US children being adopted internationally. Do you think there is a better term to use? Perhaps "US Children Adopted Internationally" would suffice. Davegert (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)User:davegert

Lastly, in the Guide adoption from A to Z, did you find anything about the eligibility criteria for adopted children? (are children placed in child institutions in their home country, 'adoptable' internationally? ) In the international law conventions that I mentioned in my section it seems that there is no clarity on whether intercountry adoption should be preferred over child's institutions placement (when birth family and national adoption are not feasible options) (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Caroprand (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Indented line The US (and I think most countries) offer preferential placement of children in national homes before allowing for international adoption. This is clear in the A to Z section. I will see if I can make the point more clearly. Davegert (talk) 18:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)User:davegert

Damien, I like very much your section as well. I just suggest to you to re-consider the sentence "we have decide to..". It sounds more suitable for an original research paper. I would just put something like "The following are 3 examples ...", so we can leave space to next readers-writers to contribute on other African countries, what do you? (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)Caroprand (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Carolina, I proofed your section and made a few grammar edits. Great job, otherwise!Davegert (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)DavidDavegert (talk) 16:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)