Between Halloween promotions and Guatemalan adoption politics, UNICEF seems to once again be a hot topic. It is interesting that every year, a new group of families enter the Guatemalan adoption process, new to any knowledge of controversies surrounding UNICEF and Intercountry Adoption (ICA). And those of us who have been around a while say "here we go again".
The easiest way to become an expert on UNICEF and ICA is to read the entire report written by Families Without Borders. Both Kelly and I from Guatadopt were contributors to this report, and it is a great comprehensive study suitable for academic publication.
A search of our archives will also lead you to lots of information, press articles, petitions and more to give you a sense of it all. But read on here for a top-line assessment.
UNICEF has done many wonderful things during its history. It is impossible to argue with the merits of their feeding and immunization programs. But over its history, it has also had its fair share of controversy. The book, Lords of Poverty contains some of this.
Nowhere in criticisms should anyone assume or portray UNICEF as being an evil organization – it is not. But like anything in this world, it is far from perfect. And the area of Intercountry Adoption is one of them.
UNICEF’s official position would not in itself be a cause for concern. It sounds quite logical and hard to debate. However within it lies the question of implementation, pragmatism, reality, and idealism. In addition, it is worth noting that it was only in the last couple of years that UNICEF’s official position admitted that ICA was preferred to long-term institutionalization. To illustrate my point, it is hard to debate that it is best for a child to stay with his biological family. From there is it best if she stay within her country of birth. And after that, ICA should be considered. Sounds good, but let’s illustrate where the problems lie in the details.
1.) Stay with biological family – should a birthmother have the right to say that she does not wish for her child to grow up within her biological family. Should UNICEF pressure countries to pass legislation that would remove a woman’s right to develop an adoption plan? What if she knows her family would want to keep the child but not provide a safe, stable, loving environment?
2.) 2.) Stay in country – So just how long should a country, under law, have to search for a hypothetic domestic family to adopt the child? What happens to the child in the meantime? What if the country offers no good foster or institutional care?
The main issue with UNICEF’s position and formal lobbying efforts are that they are based on one universal standard that does not waiver or give consideration to the uniqueness of each country. Impoverished nations with poor government infrastructure, absent of social programs, do not have the ability to implement the UNICEF ICA model and end up with a clean, functioning system. Instead what we have seen time and time again in countries like El Salvador and Honduras is an end to ICA with no evidence of an increase in family unification or domestic adoption. This is what UNICEF calls “success”.
Those are the main issues with their formal, above-board position. The other strong points of contention are their more covert operations. I cannot say whether these tactics are endorsed by the HQ or just the actions of rogue in-country staff, but UNICEF representatives have been involved in activities such as instigating false media reports, spreading lies such as organ harvesting, trying to dissuade social workers from processing adoption work, and what could easily be construed as bribery. People can choose to believe or not believe these claims as they are very hard to prove. What I will say is that there have been more than enough false stories in the Guatemalan press with UNICEF officials quoted, reports from people I know who work on humanitarian causes, and more to lead me to these conclusions.
As I wrote at the beginning, reading the Families Without Borders report is your best bet to make an informed opinion on UNICEF and ICA, and then to use that to decide whether or not it makes you unwilling to support UNICEF in its entirety. I could write much more, but consider this a starting point.
Posted by Kevin at October 31, 2006 12:21 PMWhat I find interesting is that Unicef's arguments AGAINST international adoption would condemn most adoptions in the US itself. First, birthmother should choose her own family--does not happen here. Second, poverty should not be reason for adoption--it's a reason here. Thirdly, lawyers make money from adoption--you bet US lawyers make lots of money. Why not attack the US system as well?
Posted by: Jennifer at October 31, 2006 01:15 PMExcellent point Jennifer! Last month CNN aired a piece on the current state of children in Romania. Adoptions ceased, no services or support are provided to parents, children are now being left in over-crowded hospitals, or are living on the streets. Where is UNICEF now?
Marie
One more thing to add that supports America's lack of compliance regarding international adoption. A few months ago, one of the news shows (60 Minutes?) aired a piece on International Adoption. Here's the twist, it was American children being adopted by Canadian and German citizens. The adoption agency was based in Chicago and the turn around time from referral to take-home was...one week! Yes folks, you are reading that correctly..one week! How can this be? This goes to show that the US is far from even beginning to comply to any standards that we, as adopted parents with Guatemalan children, are made to comply with. Also, regarding the latest broo-ha-ha over Madonna's adoption, NOT one news interviewer made a comment on how can a US citizen adopt in Britain? For all the UNICEF and Hague Treaty aficionados, how about making the US and other countries comply to these said standards? But let's get real, not to lose sight of the most important thing here, how about finding families for all these children worldwide. Would appreciate dialog on this topic. Marie
Posted by: william at November 1, 2006 06:29 AMI think Madonna is actually considered a citizen in the Uk due to her marriage and possibly due to her residing there for some time now. Not positive. On a different note with UNICEF, I find it extremely sad that UNICEF views intercountry adoption as just a business,not the fact that thousands of children are being loved and cared for in wonderful, kind homes. Sad that some can be so cynical,and really its too bad for them, but sad that they may be able to influence others who havent experienced the joy of adoption. I'm so glad to be one of those people that has experienced and continues everday to experience the joys of parenting a beautiful Guatemalan born child!
Posted by: Amy at November 1, 2006 09:12 PMAmy-CNN reported that there were 67 "human rights"organizations lobbying in the Malawian courts against international adoption. Of course, UNICEF was one of them. Some of their arguing points is that for a child to be available for adoption, the child must first be classified as an orphan. In which case, Madonna's child was not. Though I whole heartedly agree with her desire to adopt, there were other children available. Also, Malawi does not allow international adoption to take place, and in the few cases that they have in the past there was a long residency requirement in place and reviewed by the courts. So my argument remains still from my previous post, too many inconsistencies with the adoption process that varies from country to country and where is UNICEF when adoptions do cease? These children need loving families and the so-called human rights organizations and governments have lost sight of this. Marie
Posted by: marie at November 2, 2006 10:55 AMInteresting that UNICEF takes issue with lawyers making money on ICA when their are plenty UNICEF staffers whose salaries are paid with monies donated to help needy children. UNICEF is not a 100% volunteer organization - How can they expect that all peoples involved with placing needy children in loving permanent homes through ICA do so uncompensated.
Posted by: Shana at November 2, 2006 12:32 PMMy point still remains, what is wrong with children being raised by loving families in different countries and of different ethnic groups, as well as, people of different races and cultures intermarrying? Science now shows us that we ALL came out of Africa originally. We are ALL brothers and sisters and that "race" is a false construct. (See the National Geographic Genome Study.) I think we are still stuck in very racist views of racial purity. How will we get beyond racism, if race and culture and ethnic groups are what "define" us all as human beings. I don't see how we get beyond the fact that UNICEF is racist.
And the longer babies are held in "limbo" with all these rules and hoop jumping- even IF they are in good foster care (and so many are not!) and the rules are well-intended, the more psychological damage is being done to the child. Should adoptions be about whose "property" a child is - or about the good of the child?? We are still treating children like "property," even if they aren't being "sold."
Posted by: Ruth at November 18, 2006 11:32 PM