I can remember clearly the yellow walls and Holly Hobby bedspreads in my room the night I arrived in America.  On the wall were a few pictures, one was a poster of UNICEF – three color blocked children sitting on top of a white dove.  That poster was on the wall for the duration we lived in that home.  I loved that poster.  I took it to mean that there was a group of people who looked out for all children, no matter their color.  It embodied a sense of hope for me. I remember wanting to work for UNICEF.  It is on my bucket list to someday be a part of UNICEF in a project in some way.

One of my first writing projects when I worked at the EBD Adoption Institute was to write a paper comparing the UN Rights of the Child and the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption.  I was struck by how much these two documents had in common and remain curious as to how the United States felt it was ok to ratify the Hague but not the UNRC?  If I stick to typical social situations and pop culture as my source, I find adoption is still second-best, for some completely abhorant to the possibility of having a “child of my own.” I know, I am oversimplifying it, but for those conspiracy theorists among us, I am certain the thought of market forces impacting adoption plays a huge factor in the Hague being ratified and the other stuck having only been signed.

Now, I literally living my dream chance.  It isn’t UNICEF, but so close, an international NGO that is one answer to the plight of children who are without parents.  Between assisting them craft their position statements on adoption and spending half of September with the APRC group to draft a position paper on the North Korean Refugee Adoption Act of 2012, I realize my stand on adoption is gaining clarity.  It isn’t so much whether adoption should or shouldn’t happen.  That ship has sailed centuries ago.  It is about when and how it should happen if we believe the child is the central focus, the client.  Our definition of “child” and all he/she is entitled to keeps evolving, but I am glad that UNICEF hasn’t changed their perspective, or has it?  This sentence caught my eye in particular – For individual children who cannot be cared for in a family setting in their country of origin, inter-country adoption may be the best permanent solution. I appreciate the choice of words here and can well imagine how many hours it took to craft such a sentence.  What I am struck by is the contrast in perception that UNICEF is a major roadblock to international adoption.  With a sentence like that, how can anyone believe all this venom is warranted?  Furthermore, what is so wrong about a leading international organization, created to support families and protect children from exploitation, making a stand that adoption not be the main priority?  Color me naive, but I am totally OK with UNICEF being there to be the stalwart bar set on how we prioritize adoption.  As long as there are articles that read like this – The Evangelical Adoption Crusade , we need them to stay that way.

I thought I would post what UNICEF has on their site about their thoughts on inter-country adoption.

UNICEF’s position on Inter-country adoption

Since the 1960s, there has been an increase in the number of inter-country adoptions.  Concurrent with this trend, there have been growing international efforts to ensure that adoptions are carried out in a transparent, non-exploitative, legal manner to the benefit of the children and families concerned. In some cases, however, adoptions have not been carried out in ways that served the best interest of the children — when the requirements and procedures in place were insufficient to prevent unethical practices.  Systemic weaknesses persist and enable the sale and abduction of children, coercion or manipulation of birth parents, falsification of documents and bribery.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child, which guides UNICEF’s work, clearly states that every child has the right to grow up in a family environment, to know and be cared for by her or his own family, whenever possible.  Recognising this, and the value and importance of families in children’s lives, families needing assistance to care for their children have a right to receive it. When, despite this assistance, a child’s family is unavailable, unable or unwilling to care for her/him, then appropriate and stable family-based solutions should be sought to enable the child to grow up in a loving, caring and supportive environment.
Inter-country adoption is among the range of stable care options.  For individual children who cannot be cared for in a family setting in their country of origin, inter-country adoption may be the best permanent solution.

UNICEF supports inter-country adoption, when pursued in conformity with the standards and principles of the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Inter-country Adoptions – already ratified by more than 80 countries. This Convention is an important development for children, birth families and prospective foreign adopters. It sets out obligations for the authorities of countries from which children leave for adoption, and those that are receiving these children. The Convention is designed to ensure ethical and transparent processes. This international legislation gives paramount consideration to the best interests of the child and provides the framework for the practical application of the principles regarding inter-country adoption contained in the Convention on the Rights of the Child.  These include ensuring that adoptions are authorised only by competent authorities, guided by informed consent of all concerned, that inter-country adoption enjoys the same safeguards and standards which apply in national adoptions, and that inter-country adoption does not result in improper financial gain for those involved in it.  These provisions are meant first and foremost to protect children, but also have the positive effect of safeguarding the rights of their birth parents and providing assurance to prospective adoptive parents that their child has not been the subject of illegal practices.

The case of children separated from their families and communities during war or natural disasters merits special mention.  Family tracing should be the first priority and inter-country adoption should only be envisaged for a child once these tracing efforts have proved fruitless, and stable in-country solutions are not available. This position is shared by UNICEF, UNHCR, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Hague Conference on Private International Law, the International Committee of the Red Cross, and international NGOs such as the Save the Children Alliance and International Social Service.
UNICEF offices around the world support the strengthening of child protection systems. We work with governments, UN partners and civil society to protect vulnerable families, to ensure that robust legal and policy frameworks are in place and to build capacity of the social welfare, justice and law enforcement sectors.

Most importantly, UNICEF focuses on preventing the underlying causes of child abuse, exploitation and violence.

New York 22 July 2010

4 thoughts on “UNICEF

  1. A couple thoughts: If the Hague convention is designed to ensure ethical and transparent adoptions and UNICEF supports IA, it sounds to me like it is a system set up for ‘peace of mind’ for the potential adoptive parents and ‘safeguarding’ the multi-billion dollar industry rather than REAL protection of the original families/parents and children that the framework of the Conventions of the Rights of the Child provides. I don’t see how Hague or UNICEF provides any protection for the biological parents or children in the Intercountry adoption system. International Adoption is a business that will continually create adoption corruption spreading from one country to the next. Too much money is involved and not enough punishments or spotlights on the middle man. How is IA possibly the best interests of the child when the child rights to know his/her identity is erased, locked up, oceans apart and they cannot even speak the same language to their family members ‘if’ they do ever reunite? With IA their is no HOPE (or very little) for family tracing at all! We are not protected to know our identity, we are not protecting the vulnerable families, we are keeping agencies in business by keeping us separated and by enabling the government to not set up adequate social services for women and children ultimately affecting women’s rights and human rights. Seems like a strategic plan by the adoption agencies to continue separating families oceans apart so it’s impossible to be ‘transparent’ and the Hague convention is their ticket. Another thought, how much would you say is a ‘proper’ amount for IA? $60,000? When do you say ‘enough is enough?’ When do you start classifying this as child trafficking? When do we re-think solutions and realize that it’s in the best interest of the country/community to keep families together, encouraging families to hold tight to their birth-right children? When do we start questioning the propaganda that the agencies like to feed the West and European countries in order to market the ‘orphan’ for sale to naive PAPs, playing to their weakness of infertility getting them emotionally involved to the photolistings of children’s faces on the adoption websites. When do we start giving back children to their original parents when we find ‘paper orphans’ and falsified documents? When do we start taking care of the 100s of thousands of foster kids in America? When do we say STOP TAKING from the poor and GIVING to the rich? When should we start ‘HELPING’ the poor instead?
    How is the Hague and UNICEF safeguarding the rights of the biological parents if UNICEF supports inter-country adoption? It sounds as if the real protecting of the natural families and adoptees is in the framework of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Adoption is a violation of our human rights and women rights. It’s time to ban adoption from Ethiopia and China so agencies power of influence of adoption corruption will STOP! I think Bertha Holt said it best….if you read her memoir she said something to the affects of …..’there is a special place in hell for people who sell children’. Hmmmm, makes ya kinda think…..

Leave a Reply to Cat Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s