Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Politics and a Contemporary Social Role for Adoption

  • Chapter
The Politics of Adoption

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

  • 1176 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter reflects on the political dimension to the social role of adoption – as evidenced in the law, policy and practice of many nations examined in the preceding chapters – and gives some consideration to the likelihood and desirability of a further phase of political re-shaping.

Beginning with a broad historical overview, this chapter examines the relationship between politics and the social role of adoption: analysing the social purposes now served by the adoption process. The bulk of the chapter examines the nature and extent of jurisdictional differences as regards the politically defined role of adoption in contemporary society. Drawing from material in Parts 3, 4, 5 and 6, it compares and evaluates jurisdictional differences in three areas crucial to that social role: re-configured families (step, kin and same sex); children in the public care system; and intercountry adoption, including the complications arising from international trafficking and commercial surrogacy. It concludes by considering some challenges that lie ahead for adoption as a social construct.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
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

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See, Gibbons, R. 1949. The decline and fall of the Roman Empire. London: Harrap, 1949, at p. 30.

  2. 2.

    See, Gilligan, R. 1991. Irish child care services: Policy, practice and provision. Dublin: Institute of Public Administration.

  3. 3.

    See, Gibbons, R. The decline and fall of the Roman Empire, op cit.

  4. 4.

    Justinian’s reform of the law relating to adoption, and to the family more generally, were undertaken in 529 AD. See, further, Borkowski, A. 1994. Textbook on Roman law, 138. London: Blackstone.

  5. 5.

    See, for example, Creagh, D. 2012. The baby trains: Catholic foster care and western migration, 1873–1929. Journal of Social History 46(1): 197–218.

  6. 6.

    See, Bird, C. 1998. The stolen children; their stories, Sydney: Random House.

  7. 7.

    See, for example, Haskins, V., and M.D. Jacobs. 2002. Stolen generations and vanishing Indians: The removal of indigenous children as a weapon of war in the United States and Australia, 1970–1940. In Children and war: A historical anthology, ed. J. Marten. New York: New York University Press.

  8. 8.

    See, for example, Jacobs, M. 2014. A generation removed: The fostering and adoption of Indian children in the post-war world. Lincoln, NE, USA: University of Nebraska Press, 2014.

  9. 9.

    See, for example, Catholic Care (Diocese of Leeds) v. The Charity Commission for England and Wales [2011] Eq LR 597.

  10. 10.

    See, also: the National Association of Evangelicals, the largest conservative Protestant group in the U.S.; the National Conference of Catholic Bishops; the North American Presbyterian and Reformed Council; the Association of Gospel Rescue Missions and the National Association of Evangelicals; and Christian Churches Together, a new co-operative effort involving faith groups from five families within Christianity – Evangelical/Pentecostal, Historic Protestant, Orthodox, Racial/Ethnic, and Roman Catholic.

  11. 11.

    See, Johns & Anor, R (on the application of) v. Derby City Council & Anor [2011] EWHC 375 per Munby P.

  12. 12.

    Repealed by s 3 of the Children and Families Act 2014. The ‘due consideration’ provision remains valid for adoption law in Wales.

  13. 13.

    See, Scherman, R. Doing more harm than good: Misguided salvation in the evangelical movement in her review of Joyce, K. 2013. The child catchers: Rescue, trafficking and the new gospel of adoption. New York: Public Affairs Books; PsycCRITIQUES, December 25, Vol 58, No 50, 2013.

  14. 14.

    In December 1996, President Clinton issued his Executive Memorandum on adoption and in 1997 the Department responded with the Adoption 2000 report.

  15. 15.

    In July 2000, the Performance and Innovation Unit of the Cabinet Office, acting under the direction of the Prime Minister, assessed the need for change and published The Prime Minister’s Review: Adoption.

  16. 16.

    Author acknowledges advice from David Smolin on this matter (note to author, 27.11.2014).

  17. 17.

    See, further, Clover, C. Russia bans adoption by U.S. Citizens. Financial Times, December 28, 2012 at: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9abc9eb2-5032-11e2-a231-00144feab49a,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcms%2Fs%2F0%2F9abc9eb2-5032-11e2-a231-00144feab49a.html%3Fsiteedition%3Duk&siteedition=uk&_i_referer=#axzz3Hdev3vIi

  18. 18.

    See, Menozzi, C., and B. Mirkin. 2007. Child adoption: A path to parenthood?, 5, at http://paa2007.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=70610.

  19. 19.

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

  20. 20.

    See, Rushton, A. 2004. A scoping and scanning review of research on the adoption of children placed from public care. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry 9(1): 89–106.

  21. 21.

    See, for example, Buckles, K.S. Adoption subsidies and placement outcomes for children in foster care, at: http://www3.nd.edu/~kbuckles/adoption.pdf

  22. 22.

    Although it has to be said that Hayes was unable to substantiate any such inverse correlation when comparing rates of ICA with domestic adoptions more broadly (ie not specific to child care). See, further, Hayes, P. 2009. Intercountry adoption: A comparative analysis of its effect on domestic adoption rates. Full research report, ESRC end of award report, RES-000-22-1840. Swindon: ESRC.

  23. 23.

    See, Briggs, L. 2003. Mother, child, race, nation: The visual iconography of rescue and the politics of transnational and transracial adoption. Gender and History 15(2): 179–200.

  24. 24.

    See, Selman P. 2011. Intercountry adoption after the Haiti earthquake: Rescue or robbery? Adoption & Fostering, 35(4): 41–49.

  25. 25.

    See, Recommendation 39 of report by the Special Commission on the Practical Operation of The Hague Convention (17–25 June 2010) at: http://www.hcch.net/upload/wop/adop2010concl_e.pdf

  26. 26.

    See, Johnson, K. 2002. Law & Society Review 36(2): 379–396, at p. 380. See, further, at: http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~fan/fcs5400-6400/studentpresentation2006fall/JohnsonKay.pdf

  27. 27.

    See, Selman, P. 2012. Global trends in intercountry adoption: 2001–2010. Adoption Advocate No. 44, the National Council for Adoption, February.

  28. 28.

    See, for example, Mason, J.M. 2001. Inter-country adoption: A global problem or a global solution. Journal of International Affairs 55(1): 141–166.

  29. 29.

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

  30. 30.

    Citing Bartholet, E. International adoption: Thoughts on the human rights issues. Buffalo Human Rights Law Review 13: 151–203, at pp. 161–163.

  31. 31.

    Ibid at pp. 160–161.

  32. 32.

    Ibid at pp. 156–57, 190–191.

  33. 33.

    See, Bartholet, E. International adoption: The human rights position, op cit., at p. 26 citing Dohle, A. 2008. Inside story of an adoption scandal. Cumberland Law Review 39(1): 131–186, at p. 131.

  34. 34.

    See, for example, Selman, P. 2012. The global decline of intercountry adoption; What lies ahead? Social Policy and Society 11(3): 381–397.

  35. 35.

    See, Hollinger, J.H. 2010. Adoption law and practice, New York: LexisNexis.

  36. 36.

    See, Bartholet, E. International adoption: The human rights position, op cit.

  37. 37.

    See, Selman, P. The global decline of intercountry adoption; what lies ahead?, op cit.

  38. 38.

    See, Smolin, D.M. 2010. Child laundering and The Hague convention on intercountry adoption: The future and past of intercountry adoption. University of Louisville Law Review 48(3): 441–498.

  39. 39.

    Gibbons, J.L., and K.S. Rotabi (eds.). 2012. Intercountry adoption: Policies, practices, and outcomes. Burlington: Ashgate.

  40. 40.

    Ibid, at p. 385 where he explains that: ‘typically child laundering consists of obtaining children illicitly through force, funds or fraud, providing false paperwork that indicates that the children are abandoned or relinquished “orphans”, and then processing these “orphans” through the official intercountry adoption system’.

  41. 41.

    See, Graff, E. 2008. The lie we love. Foreign Policy, November 1, at: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4508&print=1

  42. 42.

    See, Smolin, D. 2012. The Debate. In ed. J.L. Gibbons and K.S. Rotabi, Intercountry adoption: Policies, practices, and outcomes, Burlington: Ashgate, at p. 396.

  43. 43.

    See, Bartholet, E. ibid, pp. 377–378.

  44. 44.

    See, Haworth, A. 2009. Surrogate mothers: Womb for rent. Seattle P.I. July 1st, at: http://www.seattlepi.com/lifestyle/article/Surrogate-Mothers-Womb-for-rent-1303111.php

  45. 45.

    See, for example, Hermann, K.J., and B. Kasper. 1992. International adoption: The exploitation of women and children. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work 7: 45–58.

  46. 46.

    See, Ryznar, M., ‘International Commercial Surrogacy and Its Parties’, 43 John Marshall Law Review, 2010.

  47. 47.

    See, Raymond, J.G. Reproduction, population, technology and rights. ISIS International, at: http://www.isiswomen.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=534:reproduction-population-technology-and-rights&catid=134

  48. 48.

    See, Rotabi, K.S., and N.S. Bromfield. 2012. The decline in intercountry adoption and the new practice of global surrogacy: Global exploitation and human rights concerns. Affilia: Journal of Women and Social Work 27(2): 129–141.

  49. 49.

    See, Bartholet, E. International adoption: The human rights position, at: http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3228398/IA-GlPol72409.pdf?sequence=2, at p. 26.

  50. 50.

    See, Preamble to the Convention of 29 May 1993 on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, at: http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.text&cid=69

  51. 51.

    See, United Nations Human Rights Council, ‘Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children’, Eleventh Session Resolution 11/7, 2009.

  52. 52.

    See, for example: Freundlich, M. 2000. Adoption and ethics: The market forces in adoption. Washington: CWLA Press (Child Welfare League of America); Graff, N.B. 2000. Intercountry adoption and the convention on the rights of the child: Can the free market in children be controlled? Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce 405; and Smolin, D. 2005. Child laundering: How the intercountry adoption system legitimizes and incentivizes the practices of buying, trafficking, kidnapping, and stealing children. Wayne Law Review 52: 115–200 and Smolin, D. 2007. Child laundering as exploitation: Applying anti-trafficking norms to intercountry adoption under the coming Hague regime. Vermont Law Review 32: 1–55.

  53. 53.

    See, Bromfield, N.F., and K.S. Rotabi. 2012. Human trafficking and the haitian child abduction attempt: Policy analysis and implications for social workers and NASW. Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics 9(1): 13–35.

  54. 54.

    Adoption in these countries is not specifically endorsed by law, policy or practice as an option for addressing parental failure.

  55. 55.

    See, Menozzi, C., and B. Mirkin. 2007. Child adoption: A path to parenthood? New York: United Nations Population Division, at p. 6.

  56. 56.

    See, Hollinger, J.H. 1988–2005. Adoption law and practice, vol. 1. New York: Matthew Bender Co., Lexis-Nexis, (2005 update).

  57. 57.

    See, for example, Surrogate parenting. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, at: http://www.iep.utm.edu/surr-par/

  58. 58.

    See, M.R. & Anor v. An tArd Chlaraitheoir [2013] IEHC 91.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Queensland University of Technology, Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    Kerry O’Halloran

Authors
  1. Kerry O’Halloran
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

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 Contemporary Social Role 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_20

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation