Adoption costs are extremely excessive given the cost of living in the countries where adoptions occur. Especially given that donations rarely make it to the intended recipients. For example, in Guatemala the average adoption foreign fee, not including US agency fee, CIS and travel etc, is $20,000 plus foster fees. The actual cost to process this paperwork through the process is far less than half of that and that is if the providers are paid at US rates in a country where the per capita income is below $1,000 yr. A lot of the additional money goes to ‘child finders’ who are paid to solicit for placements. If these children truly need homes, why woluld this be necessary?

Russia, where the relinquishments are rarely if ever called into question, was rife with extremely high fees (typical Russian adoption cost is $35,000), cash transactions outside of hotels and babies being referred to those with the ‘best connections’ with authorities.

Headlines have been made lately as human rights groups are currently condemning Nepal’s process and its future as an adoption source country is seriously in question. The same private system is in place as was in Cambodia. The same baby selling, buying and identity laundering is occurring.

These instances are not some aberration in a generally transparent legitimate process.

I’d like to hear more about the “ever improving atmosphere of reduced corruption” you refer to. What countries are these? What makes you believe they have improved?

The great majority of adoptions are ‘properly done’, so when the baby-with-the-bathwater mentality gets tossed around freely hackles are raised.

Thank you for the definition of a law review article. May I refer you to the wiki for ‘blog’?

What you see as a ‘declining state of international adoptions’ many others think of as an ever-improving atmosphere of reduced corruption, and repeated incantations of “scandal, scandal, scandal” does not result in a truth that indicates the bulk of adoptions are fraught.

I did not accuse Smolin of creating a problem, simply of pulling out the stops on emotive language, and I suggested that his “smattering of inside information” is spurious and insulting.

There is need of reform in every single government, organization and institution on the planet. I have some suggestions, and work diligently for improvement in many areas, international adoption included, even though you may not be privy to any of my solutions.

The declining state of international adoptions is a fact not conjecture or some far flung theory. The field is marked with outrageous fees, corruption and a mounting list of countries closed due to scandals and illegalities.

Some adoptive parents feel strongly that unless those responsible for this are stopped, adoption will not be an option for these kids. This is very far from being an anti-adoption sentiment. It is extremely pro-adoption.

Pretending international adoption is not headed for extinction on its current path isn’t the answer. Taking action (including exploring the problem in a scholarly fashion) is.

Professor Smolin didn’t create or exacerbate the problem. He is only holding up to the light complete with both insight and suggestions.

I haven’t heard any of your solutions. Or do you feel there is no need for reform?

Happy that you’ve joined us here on the blogs, and hope you do find much of interest.

To address your issues with this post, just as you took “some exception to some of the comments”, I did the same with the article, which I did read.

I have no idea what the author’s personal or professional status may be, but reacted to emotive language and sweeping generalizations that have no place in a document presented as research.

Since I write this blog … not a law review … it is fair that I present my POV when passing along items to readers. No watermarks, no pretense of academic authority, it’s just little old me being offended and concerned.

I pulled up and read the paper that is cited. This is a law review article and appears to be based upon substantive research. I also spoke with a friend who is a graduate of Samford Law School (Note to MamaS: I assume you must be a Harvard Law Grad; I’ve now met 3 graduates of Samford’s law school and they could hold their own against anyone from the Ivy League) and he assures me that the professor who wrote this is a serious scholar and is himself the father of several internationally adopted children.

If you would read the article in its entirety, you would see that he is not a foe of international adoption. Simply burying your head in the sand does not mean that trafficking in children does not exist.

Nor is the author suggesting that ALL international adoptions involve illegal trafficking in children. He is simplying saying that this problem does in fact exist and is making some suggestions as to how it could be curbed. I don’t think that he is advocating the termination of any and all international adoptions; he simply mentions that as one alternative.

As the adoptive mother of one child internationally adopted and being in the middle of a second adoption, I guess I ask myself how I would feel it I were a poor, uneducated woman and my child was taken from me against my will.

I don’t mean to start a fire fight, but I felt the blog was more than a bit one-sided and did not really reflect what the author of the article was trying to convey. I am sorry if certain anti-adoption groups are using this article in their propaganda campaign, but that does not mean that the article does not have significant validity.

Isn’t it amazing the number of people who think that if adoption can’t be redone their way, the whole thing ‘must’ be scrapped? John

I’m assuming that the author is putting the US in the developed nations category. Which makes no sense considering the amount of corruption here! (-: