Should we ban adoption from abroad? That doesn't just follow from the facts

Orphanages are bad for children. And adoption often makes happier. Don't forget that in the debate on intercountry adoption, write Marinus van IJzerdoorn and Marian Bakermans-Kranenburg, professor of pedagogy in Rotterdam and professor of neurobiological backgrounds of upbringing and development at VU Amsterdam.

Marinus van IJzerdoorn and Marian Bakermans-Kranenburg 18 april 2022, 13:23

The debate about intercountry adoption has flared up again. The government and the House of Representatives will soon discuss what to do with intercountry adoption. Stop or continue? In the meantime, opinions abound, but what are the facts?

First, children who grow up in orphanages (orphanages) experience enormous delays in their physical and neural growth, as well as in their cognitive and psychological development. For example, in our study with Natasha Dobrova-Krol in homes in Ukraine, many children had severe growth retardation and hormonal stress imbalance. We saw that picture confirmed in our recent overview analysis in the Lancet Psychiatry of more than 300 empirical studies in more than 60 countries involving more than 100,000 children. The longer the stay in a home, the greater the arrears.

Incidentally, by no means all children in the 'orphanages' have lost their parents through death, but reliable data are lacking. There is simply too little good research into parents who have abandoned their children because of poverty, cultural or religious taboos, or demographic politics, and how this could have been prevented.

Catching up after adoption

Second, intercountry adoptees tend to do very well after being adopted into a family. They are catching up enormously in almost all areas and the majority reach the same level of development over time as their peers with a happier start.

We were able to confirm this picture together with Joost van Ginkel via Dutch CBS data on drug use by nearly 2.5 million children and young people, 10,602 of whom were internationally adopted. The adopted children used no more drugs for psychological or physical problems than their peers.

Identity problems also do not occur more often, as was apparent from our overview analysis with Femmie Juffer among 45,000 participants. This contradicts the conclusion of the Joustra Committee 'that intercountry adoption is associated with problems for the adopted children'. Certainly a minority of adoptees experience problems and they deserve the best possible support. But the vast majority are doing fine.

No evidence of an adoption market

Thirdly, there is no doubt that there have been (or have been) abuses in adoptions, of which the report provides poignant examples. However, reliable figures or percentages on the number of abuses are lacking.

This also applies to the period after the conclusion of the Hague Adoption Convention, which was intended to prevent abuses. There would be an adoption market due to a high demand for potential adoptive children. That offer would be increased with perverse financial incentives. But there is no convincing evidence for the pull of intercountry adoption on the number of orphanages.

The mismatch between supply and demand is just the opposite. The most accurate estimate of the number of children in orphanages is 7.5 million in 2020; the total number of adoptions to western countries from 2004 to 2020 was about 400,000. An example: in 2016 Ukraine had almost 800 orphanages with more than 100,000 children. In the same year, 399 Ukrainian children were adopted intercountry, which is 0.4 percent. Since 2017, the policy in that country has been aimed at allowing fewer children to stay in an institution. Ukraine recently put a stop to all adoptions, because it is impossible to control them because of the war.

Stricter supervision to prevent abuses

Extensive research has therefore shown that growing up in orphanages is harmful, that the transition to family upbringing makes it possible to make a significant catch-up, and that adoption does not have a pull effect on the number of homes. Unfortunately, reliable knowledge is no longer available to support political decision-making.

There is a gap between fact and obligation. Intercountry adoption can offer a child a future if there are really no other solutions in a local family context. And stricter supervision is needed to prevent abuses. But stopping or continuing with intercountry adoption does not necessarily follow from the facts. It is up to politicians to make decisions, taking into account social-ethical values. Scientists fit modesty, politicians benefit

t