I am honored to appear before the House Committee on International Relations to testify about international adoption. My name is Susan Soon-keum Cox, I am Vice President of Public Policy and External Affairs for Holt International Children’s Services in Eugene, Oregon.

Holt pioneered intercountry adoptions from Korea in 1956, and has placed approximately 50,000 children from 20 countries with adoptive families in the United States. I have been an adoption professional for more than 25 years and I have had the privilege of visiting adoption and child welfare programs in many countries. I have witnessed tremendous changes in intercountry adoption practice. Some of these changes have moved the practice forward---some have not. Sadly, what has not changed is that the number of homeless children has not diminished, but increased. That reality requires a critical examination of the problems associated with international adoption and a determination to find solutions.

In 1956 when mixed raced Korean children were sent to adoptive families in the U.S. and Europe it was considered an outrageous notion that children of one race, culture and nationality could be successfully transplanted from one country to another. Particularly since these were generally white families adopting Korean children. Many considered it a crazy social experiment. But in spite of the skeptics--it worked.

Worldwide, approximately 200,000 children have come to their families through international adoption, more than half of those children have come to families in the United States. In 2001, nearly 20,000 children were adopted internationally by U.S. citizens. The numbers are expected to increase as the practice of international adoption becomes more accepted by both the countries sending children abroad for adoption, and the countries receiving them.

International adoption should never be the first line of defense for homeless children. It is not meant to be a solution to world poverty, civil unrest, or urban migration. However, for literally thousands of children throughout the world intercountry adoption is the only viable possibility for them to have a permanent loving family. Whenever there is a disaster, whether from natural causes, armed conflict or human atrocities, the predictable consequence is that children are the most vulnerable. Their survival, both immediate and long-term, is the most fragile.

There is nothing that elicits deeper passion than issues regarding children. International adoption has always been controversial and often misunderstood. It is a life long process, one that is generational even beyond the generation that the child comes into the family. The more ordinary international adoption becomes, the larger the numbers, the greater the critical mass, the more diligent we must be in setting ethical standards that protect and assures that birth parents, adoptive parents and especially the children be protected and safe. This diligence is also necessary to protect the institution of intercountry adoption and the hope it represents for generations of children in the future.

This hearing today demonstrates the degree to which international adoption has come front and center onto the public stage. It is also a significant step in facing up to the challenges. More importantly, caring enough to do whatever is necessary to examine the problems and committed enough to discover solutions.

International adoption is complex and complicated. That is unavoidable when you consider how multi layered the process. It extends between different cultures, languages, time zones, laws, currencies and the bureaucracies of at least two governments. Providing ethical adoption services requires more than learning the laws, procedures and nuances unique to a particular country and program.

Adoption agencies, facilitators, adoptive parents, and adoption advocates must be committed to the big-picture, long-term process of international adoption over the short-term immediate result for a particular child. Policies and practices must be established recognizing the greater good for children that will be served.

An unfaltering commitment of adoption should be that it is intended as a means to provide families for children, rather than children for families. This is especially critical in international adoption where it is the children of one country being taken to another. The simplistic assumption that a poor child in a developing country will have a preferred life with a family in a ‘rich’ country is misguided, imperialistic and overlooks the sacrifice and loss, not only to the sending country, but to the child.

INTERNATIONAL ADOPTION--THE PROBLEMS:
Issues of cost, accountability and regulation of international adoption:

One of the greatest concerns in international adoption is the expense of adopting a child. Costs can vary from a few thousand dollars, to $30,000 or more. It is appropriate to charge fees for services. However, there is not always a direct relationship between the two activities and little consistency regarding fees and services delivered.

In the 1970's there were only a few countries placing their children for adoption overseas, and a handful of agencies placing them. As the number of countries with international adoption programs increased, so have the number of agencies and individuals placing them. According the National Adoption Information Clearing House, those numbers have bloated to nearly 500. For perspective adoptive families, there is little to guide them in determining the quality and the agency they are considering.

Ethical adoption practice is not determined by the size of a program or agency. There are large and small agencies that provide sound ethical adoption services. The philosophy and commitment to strong professional child welfare principles is the measurement of a good program. International adoption is not simply a legal process; it is a life long process, which requires consistent social work practices.

To ensure ethical adoptions there must be transparency and full disclosure when it comes to identifying and explaining costs related to adoption activity. This includes disclosure of expenses directly related to overseas program activity. Many international adoptions are provided by non-profit organizations that must comply with U.S. regulations. However, non-profit status does not necessarily ensure ethical practice or standards regarding costs.

International adoption is undeniably a business, and there are legitimate expenses associated with managing and operating legitimate program activity. Adoption practitioners are required to know the complex adoption requirements in the U.S. as well as the ever-changing international requirements. It is not the standard cost of providing services that is problematic; it is the inflated expenses passed on to families that create ethical land mines. The appearance of ‘buying and selling’ of children is unavoidable when the cost of an international adoption far exceeds the local yearly income of a family. It is in the best interest of adoption agencies and practitioners to set the ethical standards that avoid even the appearance of profiting at the expense of children and families.

The impact of institutionalization on children: health, development and attachment implications:

A majority of children adopted internationally will have spent some or all of their childhood in an orphanage or institution. The quality and condition of orphanages vary greatly and are affected by resources, staff and the overall commitment to abandoned children in general. In the last decade, an increased understanding of the medical and psychological affects of institutionalization has emerged. It is recognized that there is a direct relationship between the length of time a child is institutionalized and the anticipated consequences in their physical and emotional development. According to some medical experts, children who have spent time in an institution must be considered high-risk placements or potentially children with special needs. These are critical issues that have lifelong implications for children and the families who adopt them.

The issues of race, culture and national origin:

As intercountry adoption has evolved and matured, there is less fear and anxiety about the necessity of proving its appropriateness. More attention and concern needs to focus on educating and preparing adoptive families to embrace the child’s birth country and ethnicity as valued and necessary to assure the well being of the adopted child

The majority of international adoptees are a different race than their adoptive parents and other family members. Most are children of color. This defining reality must be acknowledged and accepted by adoptive parents. They should not consider themselves a Caucasian family with a child of color; they must accept that they are an interracial family. International adoptees are a unique population. As a different race from their adoptive parents, they are consistently called upon to validate (often to strangers) that they are a “real” family.

Access to background information and informed decision-making by prospective adoptive parents:

International adoption presents unique challenges in securing accurate and truthful background information and history on individual children. Differences in culture, language, terminology, and the competence of medical resources all profoundly affect this process. The access to information and the quality and reliability of information varies widely country by country. From countries where programs are well established and sophisticated, child information can be very complete and available. Routinely this information is held by orphanages, institutions or hospitals that are under the authority of government ministries. The range of cooperation on the part of these authorities is often irregular and inconsistent.

While it is often difficult to obtain reliable child background information, it is the highest priority to make every effort to secure as much information as possible and provide documentation of the efforts undertaken. It is further the responsibility of adoption providers to consistently inform, educate and pursue reform and understanding on the part of overseas officials who hold authority over both the information and the process. Difficulty in securing information is not an excuse for failing to make diligent attempts.

In establishing working relationships with overseas partners, child information must be a shared priority. If deliberate or falsified information is suspected, the relationship should be terminated immediately. Wishfully assuming that the end justifies the means is irresponsible. Perspective adoptive parents are entitled to information they can trust. Conversely, if no information exists, families should be confident that is indeed true. Adoptees are entitled to know with certainty that the story of their personal history was preserved as it actually happened. Whether or not an adoptee chooses to search for birth family, this information must never be corrupted or falsified or deleted.

In addition to preserving the information, care should be taken to preserve and protect original documents. Transferring the data through modern technology should not eliminate the notes handwritten in the margins, the perhaps soiled original paperwork that has been touched by fingerprints no longer seen, but whose essence stays forever on the paper. These are undeniably precious to adoptive families, particularly to adoptees.

Following the presentation of child information, perspective adoptive parents should have a reasonable period of time to allow a thoughtful and unprepared response. Subtle or overt coercion is a violation of ethical practice. To alter truth to more positively present a child cannot be condoned or excused. It risks the future not only for individual children, but the future of international adoption. Realistically, even the most responsible efforts sometimes fall short of perfection. It is the commitment made to doing all that can be done within the limits of authority and circumstances that affect positive change.

INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION---THE SOLUTIONS:
The Hague Convention:

In the past few years there have been some exciting and positive advancement in international adoption. The Hague Convention is the most significant and will establish a worldwide process of institutionalizing, standardizing and improving international adoption practice. it will also make the process more accountable and eliminate the opportunity for exploitation and those who refuse to comply to agreed-upon international standards.

The adoption community has welcomed the opportunity to provide input and respond to draft regulations. Given the recent concerns about international adoption activity in a variety of countries in the last few months, and moratoriums or threatened adoption moratorium from some countries, it is more critical than ever that The Hague Convention process move forward quickly. We urge the Department of State and the Administration to give thoughtful but swift review and approval to proceed toward finalized regulations and implementation. The Hague Convention is the is the most viable opportunity to elevate the ethical practice of intercountry adoption globally.

To assure The Hague can be implemented effectively, the necessary and appropriate investment in funding support must be made up front to establish a system that is adequate. Anything less will undermine from the potential of The Hague.

The Child Citizenship Act:

There have been actions to simplify and streamline the complicated adoption process. Thanks to the leadership of Representative Bill Delahunt and others, for adoptive families, the Child Citizen Act was the most tangible evidence of what could be done to eliminate duplication and barriers to adoption. This action was enthusiastically welcomed by everyone in the international adoption community, including the countries sending children to the U.S. for adoption. For the first time it provided a new level of equity for children adopted internationally.

Hundreds of adoptive families celebrated this historic milestone at Faneuil in Boston when the law went into effect in February of 2001. Thousands of adoptive families around the country anticipated automatic citizenship for their internationally adopted children. However, what was expected as the elimination of an expensive and time-consuming procedure has not been realized.

Proof of citizenship has not been 'streamlined' as allowed by this new law; instead it has been replaced with confusion as families attempt to comply on behalf of their children. The INS could positively and directly affect thousands of adoptive families by developing a simple procedure for documentation of citizenship that would not require families securing a U.S. passport for their child. This is considered long overdue and we request this be given highest priority by the Immigration and Naturalization Service.

CONCLUSION:

Without minimizing the serious issues that must be addressed regarding international adoption, it is critical not to overlook the fact that ethical adoptions do happen every day. Those committed to a high standard of ethics are the most concerned that the process be reviewed and strengthened by removing those who do not intend to follow the regulations that will be established by The Hague Convention.

Although recent history in Cambodia has had a chilling affect on the international adoption community, it was not the first time to happen. Irregularities, wherever they occur reminds us again how fragile the balance can be that holds international adoption together. There is no room to disregard or circumvent the process, for carelessness, inattention or lack of commitment. Proper documentation isn’t just a nice idea; it is absolutely necessity.

The consequences are too devastating and painful. When we see and hear stories of the shattered lives and hopes and dreams of someone longing to become a family, of loving a child that is already a son or daughter because they feel it so deeply---it is natural and right to react to that terrible moment in someone’s life.

But it is not only the immediate circumstance that hangs in the balance. It is the thousands of children of the future whose only hope will be adoption that must be considered and protected as well.