Adoption has been part of the social fabric of Western society for many years, and interracial and international adoption has been increasing in Canada since the end of World War II. Since the mid 1990s, children adopted from developing nations have numbered between 1,800 and 2,200 a year. The literature shows that international adoption is increasing in North America. But while international adoption has become more prevalent, critical policy questions have seldom been raised.
This working paper attempts to respond to this research and policy gap. Guided by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), it analyzes international adoption within the legal and conceptual frameworks of Canadian policy and legislation on immigration, multiculturalism, citizenship, and human rights.
It provides a brief history of international adoption and the issues related to international adoption and children’s rights (in the context of the UNCRC), arguing that adoption policy and practice should use a child-welfare model; that is, one in which primary consideration is given to the best interests of the child. It makes a clear distinction between child welfare and child rights. The paper explores the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (Hague Convention) and provides insight into the relationship between sending countries (where the children originate) and the receiving countries (the nations into which the children are adopted, and in this paper, Canada) and how the Hague Convention intersects with the laws of relevant nations. A comparison of the UNCRC and the Hague Convention is highlighted and sets the stage for a further comparison of the disparity between the commitments Canada has made to children through their ratification of both the UNCRC and the Hague Convention and the Canadian legislation that impacts internationally adopted children.
The conclusion is that international adoption, as an ideal, is not wrong, but as a practice and a policy, it merits challenges and scrutiny. For example, the goal and objective of taking someone else’s child as your own is loaded with sociopolitical implications and the notion that international adoption provides a kind of “universal family insurance for every child” must be challenged at the policy level. For example, accepting children from countries where human rights abuses are widely known (and often as widely ignored) is tacit endorsement of those policies and allowing a handful of parents to save a handful of babies surely condemns the others, and may well serve to perpetuate the human rights abuses that created the pool of babies in the first place.
Other gaps in the research and literature on international adoption include the need to question the market approach to international adoption and to both view the issue through the lens of the human rights of the child and to begin to employ those rights as a framework for decision-making.
The working paper also provides recommendations for the Canadian government on both policy development and future research directions to address these issues.
©Joint Centre of Excellence for Research on Immigration and Settlement - Toronto
