Skip to main content

Politics and a Regulatory Regime for Adoption

  • Chapter
  • 1168 Accesses

Part of the book series: Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice ((IUSGENT,volume 41))

Abstract

This chapter begins with a comparative analysis of the functions, constituent elements and output of the regulatory regimes, undertaken in the light of findings identified in the jurisdiction specific chapters. Attention is then given to the existence or otherwise of a public service dimension to those regimes including their respective investments in post-adoption services and in procedures allowing the parties concerned to access identifying information. The final section reflects on the regulatory implications for adoption that arise from its context – within the wider parameters set by equality and human rights legislation and family law. As national compliance with international standards is becoming an unavoidable aspect to the functioning of any regulatory regime, it is necessary to focus on the relative extent to which the countries studied give effect to the requirements of human rights and equality legislation when regulating adoption matters. The chapter then closes with a brief overview of the role played by key principles in adoption law: their congruency with family law principles; and considers the political significance of resulting jurisdictional differences.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   179.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See, Hollinger, J.H. 2010. Adoption law and practice. New York: LexisNexis (as updated).

  2. 2.

    See, Bunkers, K.M., V. Groza, and D. Lauer. 2009. International adoption and child protection in Guatemala: A case of the tail wagging the dog. International Social Work 52 649–660.

  3. 3.

    In Ireland this function is administrative; adoption hearings and the decision to grant or refuse the order sought are matters for the Adoption Authority. The High Court only has a role where legal issues, such as consent disputes, require adjudication; in all cases the final decision in relation to an adoption application taken by the Adoption Authority not the court.

  4. 4.

    In China, the China Center of Adoption Affairs (CCAA) is the appropriate administrative body that determines all adoption applications.

  5. 5.

    See, for example, the Adoption Support Services Regulations 2005, the Adoption Agency Regulations and the Suitability of Adopters Regulations 2004.

  6. 6.

    See, Hollinger, J.F. 1993. Overview of contemporary challenges to state adoption laws. Adoption Law.

  7. 7.

    See, The Hague Special Commission, 2010.

  8. 8.

    See, also, the Adoption Support Services Regulations 2005 (SI 2005 No 691).

  9. 9.

    See, for example, Dillon, S. 2003. Making legal regimes for intercountry adoption reflect human rights principles: Transforming the United Nations Convention on the rights of the child with The Hague Convention on intercountry adoption. Boston University international law journal 21 179, pp. 204–208.

  10. 10.

    See, Bartholet, E., citing Bainham, A. International adoption from Romania – Why the Moratorium should not be ended. Child & Family Law Quarterly 15 223–236, in ‘International adoption: the human rights position, at: http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3228398/IA-GlPol72409.pdf?sequence=2

  11. 11.

    See, for example, Davis, M.A. 2011. Children for families or families for children: The demography of adoption, Dordrecht: Springer.

  12. 12.

    See, for example, Smolin, D., and E. Bartholet. 2012. The debate, Part IV. In Intercountry adoption: Policies, practices, and outcomes, ed. J.L. Gibbons and K.S. Rotabi. Ashgate.

  13. 13.

    See, Bartholet, E., in ‘International Adoption: the Human Rights Position’, op cit.

  14. 14.

    Citing, Joint U.N. Programme, 2004, at p. 7.

  15. 15.

    Citing, the Secretary-General, 2006, p. 16.

  16. 16.

    Citing: Mitchell, 2009; Bartholet, 2007b, pp. 182–183.

  17. 17.

    See, Bartholet, E. International adoption: The human rights position, at: http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3228398/IA-GlPol72409.pdf?sequence=2

  18. 18.

    Ibid, citing: in India, Lackshmi Kant Pandi v. Union of India, A.I.R. 1984 (S.C.) 469; in Malawi, Adoption case No 2, 2008 and In Re CJ a Female Infant of C/o, P.O. Box 30871, Chichiri, Blantyre 3 (Msca Adoption Appeal No. 28 of 2009) [2009] MWSC 1 (12th June 2009); and in South Africa, A.D. and Another v. D.W. and Others, 2008 (3) SA 183 (CC)(S Afr.,).

  19. 19.

    See, Bartholet, E. 2010. International adoption: The human rights position. Global Policy 1(1): 91–100, at p. 389.

  20. 20.

    See, Cantwell, N. (International Consultant on Child Protection Policies). Adoption and children: A human rights perspective. The Commissioner for Human Rights, Comm DH/Issue Paper (2011), vol. 2, Strasbourg, 28th April 2011.

  21. 21.

    Ibid, at p 1.

  22. 22.

    Ibid, at para f.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

O’Halloran, K. (2015). Politics and a Regulatory Regime for Adoption. In: The Politics of Adoption. Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice, vol 41. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9777-1_19

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics