The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > General Questions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-26-2011, 01:28 PM
Machine Elf Machine Elf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Why do people from the US go to foreign countries to adopt children?

American couples sometimes adopt children from outside the US, rather than adopting domestic kids. What are the reasons for doing this?
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 04-26-2011, 01:31 PM
friedo friedo is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 20,758
1. American children are in short supply.

2. It's easier. A lot of foreign countries have huge numbers of children that need homes, and offer incentives to make the adoption process easy. This includes streamlining the paperwork, paying for background and financial checks, etc., and in some cases skipping those things altogether. By contrast, adopting from an American adoption agency or foster program can be a bureaucratic nightmare with no guarantee of success.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-26-2011, 01:31 PM
Giles Giles is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Newcastle NSW
Posts: 12,021
I think it's because there are too few kids available for adoption in the US.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-26-2011, 01:44 PM
HeyHomie HeyHomie is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Viburnum, MO
Posts: 8,343
Quote:
Originally Posted by friedo View Post
2. It's easier.
Heh.

Mrs. Homie and I went to a foreign adoption seminar years ago. I don't remember everything the guy talked about, but some of the points that stuck were: 1) The cost. The guy said $35,000 was a good starting point. 2) The paperwork. He produced a stack of papers about a foot thick and explained that each of them would need to be filled out, in order, some in triplicate, some notarized, some sent to this address in Washington, others sent to that address in Washington, some sent to two different addresses in Washington, ad nauseum. 3) The sudden "paperwork problems" that show up at City Hall in the country from which you're adopting; paperwork problems that can usually be solved with a bribe filing fee of a hundred bucks, a carton of Marlboros, or what have you.

We passed.

YMMV
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-26-2011, 01:44 PM
suranyi suranyi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 6,597
Quote:
Originally Posted by Giles View Post
I think it's because there are too few kids available for adoption in the US.
Right. In particular, adoptive parents usually want infants, and (I say hesitatingly), they usually want Caucasian or Asian infants. They are in very short supply in the U.S. adoption centers.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-26-2011, 01:47 PM
SanVito SanVito is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
If it's anything like the UK, it's because babies, in particular, are seldom available for adoption and the children that are often come from troubled, abusive backgrounds. So go abroad, get a shiny new untroubled toddler double quick and feel that warm glow thinking you've saved a child from third world poverty
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-26-2011, 01:52 PM
sitchensis sitchensis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2010
You also don't have to deal with the bio parents still being around
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-26-2011, 01:57 PM
md2000 md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
The single parent stigma is much much less in the USA than it was 40 years ago. Most of those teen moms who were forced by parents and socalpressure to give up their child at birth, today keep the child. Most of the children up for adoption today are "problem children", whose parents have given them up because they are mentally or physically challenged.

Plus, I suspect there's still a lingering racial issue - many adoptable children are black, while orphans from eastern europe were white. I'm sure any mother determined to adopt out her child in the USA can find a suitable couple either through private adoption (which often includes money, even though "selling babies" is illegal); thus reducing the supply still further for public adoptions.

The adoption process in North America is either private (which can run into the tens of thousands in "fees") or takes years, whereas some overseas adoptions are much more immediate although still not simple or cheap.

Not sure of any cite for this, but Child Welfare generally now seems more likely to take children into foster care until the mother is capable of looking after them, rather than take them for permanent adoption against the mother's will, as happened years ago.

And of course, all these "please send money to help the poor starving orphans" begfests on TV probably encourage couples who are thinking about adoption to do what they can to help...
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-26-2011, 01:59 PM
buddha_david buddha_david is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
My cousin recently adopted a baby girl from Mexico. When I asked him (jokingly, at first) how much he had to bribe the officials, he said that he & his wife were instructed to bring at least $10,000 for "The Sombrero Fund."

YMMV...
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-26-2011, 02:01 PM
Darth Panda Darth Panda is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machine Elf View Post
American couples sometimes adopt children from outside the US, rather than adopting domestic kids. What are the reasons for doing this?
American kids are fat.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-26-2011, 02:04 PM
EmAnJ EmAnJ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by friedo View Post

2. It's easier.
It's actually the exact opposite in the majority of cases. And much more expensive.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-26-2011, 02:27 PM
pbbth pbbth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by sitchensis View Post
You also don't have to deal with the bio parents still being around
This is a big one for a lot of people. Before we got pregnant we were looking into adoption and my husband was terrified that we would adopt a child only to have a biological mom pop up from nowhere a few years later and convince a judge to give her the child back. He all but refused to consider an American child for that reason.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-26-2011, 03:14 PM
Zsofia Zsofia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Not to mention that many kids up for adoption in the US may have mothers who drank or did drugs during the pregnancy.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-26-2011, 04:12 PM
Annie-Xmas Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 32,485
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zsofia View Post
Not to mention that many kids up for adoption in the US may have mothers who drank or did drugs during the pregnancy.
Cite? I've never heard this.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-26-2011, 04:25 PM
Hello Again Hello Again is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Not a majority, but 30-40% of children in foster care (generally children available for adoption are presently in foster care) have physical problems that are the result of an impoverished upbringing: delayed growth and development, HIV infection, neurological disabilities, malnutrition, and asthma. Vision, hearing, and dental problems are also especially prevalent among the children in the child welfare system

Approximately 60 percent have "severe" mental health problems.

approximately 20 percent of children in out-of-home care have developmental disabilities, mental retardation, cerebral palsy, and learning disabilities, as well as speech, hearing, and sight impairments.

http://www.cwla.org/programs/health/...carecwfact.htm

Last edited by Hello Again; 04-26-2011 at 04:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04-26-2011, 04:31 PM
Annie-Xmas Annie-Xmas is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 32,485
Your cite states:

Between 14 and 18 percent of all pregnancies involve fetal alcohol or drug exposure. Most of the other characteristics mentioned are environmental, not genetic or prenatal.

I cannot believe that the majority of children put up for adoption are alcohol/drug babies.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-26-2011, 04:44 PM
Hello Again Hello Again is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie-Xmas View Post
Your cite states:

Between 14 and 18 percent of all pregnancies involve fetal alcohol or drug exposure. Most of the other characteristics mentioned are environmental, not genetic or prenatal.

I cannot believe that the majority of children put up for adoption are alcohol/drug babies.
No they, aren;t but the reverse is true. The majority of babies exposed to drug/alcohol in utero are put up for adoption. I could imagine its possible that a majority of infants available for adoption are exposed to drug/alchohol, since only 2% of children avaiable for adoption through the state are under a year old.
http://academic2.american.edu/~mhans...atadoption.pdf

At any rate, the majority of children available for adoption in the US have at least one special need, whether developmental, medical, physical disability, etc.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-26-2011, 05:20 PM
kunilou kunilou is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 17,818
Having a number of friends who've adopted, here's what I've seen.

Some American adoption services make you jump through hoops. I know of people who've been turned down because they were single, or over 40, or didn't fit family size/income guidelines. Foreign adoption services often aren't as picky.

A large part of the U.S. adoptive pool are black children. There's a longstanding bias against white parents adopting black children. While that's changing officially, unofficially many potential white adopters feel like they're steered away from transracial adoption. Since there's a relatively small pool of white children available, they look to other countries.

I don't know any adoptive couple that didn't try to go through U.S. services before turning to overseas adoption.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-26-2011, 06:00 PM
voltaire voltaire is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Panda View Post
American kids are fat.
More fat, more flavor.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-26-2011, 06:47 PM
Farmer Jane Farmer Jane is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,785
There are plenty of kids in America up for adoption.

White girl babies cost more cause they're in demand. Boys aren't.


Quote:
Both straight and gay adoptive parents are likely to exhibit racial and sex-based biases when applying to adopt a child, a new study finds.
(snip)

Quote:
Additionally, Caucasians and Hispanics are consistently preferred to African-Americans. The probability that a non-African-American baby will attract the interest of an adoptive parent is at least seven times as high as the corresponding probability for an African-American baby.
It's so bad, they'll even cut you a deal if you take a boy or a black baby.

Quote:
These preferences against boys and black babies translate into differences in adoption closing costs, which can often be expensive. In other words, people seem willing to overcome their racial or gender biases if they can get a good deal on the babies they’re less interested in.

“[T]he increase in desirability of a girl relative to a boy can be compensated by a decrease of approximately $16,000 in adoption finalization costs,” the authors write. “Similarly, the increase in desirability of a non-African-American baby with respect to an African-American baby (both of unknown gender) is equivalent to a decrease of at least $38,000 in adoption finalization cost.”
Black kids are the majority group of potential adoptees. Not enough black parent foster children/adopteres, so sometimes they get stuck because social services and agencies don't want to put a black child with white parents.


This agency caters to black and bi racial potential adoptees. (You have to be married, too.)



Black parents, white children?


Quote:
Decades after the racial integration of offices, buses and water fountains, persistent double standards mean that African-American parents are still largely viewed with unease as caretakers of any children other than their own—or those they are paid to look after. As Yale historian Matthew Frye Jacobson has asked: "Why is it that in the United States, a white woman can have black children but a black woman cannot have white children?"

Hey, no fair! You black folk are taking all the good white babies!



Black-non black adoptions are (usually) opposed by the Association of Black Social Workers.


Quote:
The initial policy statement on preserving families of African ancestry was approved at the National Association of Black Social Workers (NABSW) Fourth Annual Conference in 1972. Known for this statement for over three decades, the emphasis has not wavered. Many thought that the organization's position focused exclusively on transracial adoption. Yet, this was one component of the position statement, which instead emphasized the importance of and barriers to preserving families of African ancestry.

In 1994, a more expansive document, Preserving African American families, reinforced the 1972 position statement by stressing the following:

(1) "stopping unnecessary out-of-home placements;
(2) reunification of children with parents;
(3) placing children of African ancestry with relatives or unrelated families of the same race and culture for
adoption;
(4) addressing the barriers that prevent or discourage persons of African ancestry from adopting;
(5) promoting culturally relevant agency practices; and,
(6) emphasizing that "transracial adoption of an African American child should only be considered after
documented evidence of unsuccessful same race placements has been reviewed and supported by
appropriate representatives of the African American community" (NABSW, 1994, p. 4).
Some parents just prefer babies.

Some parents don't want kids with disabilities or hardships.

Some don't want foster children with 'baggage'.


When I adopt, I'm doing it from my own neighborhood. It takes a village, and I'll be damned if I teach Hispanic and black children in a metro school and then go out of my way to adopt a young white baby.

There are no unwanted children, just unfound families.



It's so bad that American kids are being adopted to live in other countries.


This isn't an assault on Dopers who have adopted babies from China or Russia or whathaveyou. I'm just pointing out that there are plenty of children who need homes.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-26-2011, 06:55 PM
Farmer Jane Farmer Jane is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,785
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hello Again View Post
No they, aren;t but the reverse is true. The majority of babies exposed to drug/alcohol in utero are put up for adoption. I could imagine its possible that a majority of infants available for adoption are exposed to drug/alchohol, since only 2% of children avaiable for adoption through the state are under a year old.
http://academic2.american.edu/~mhans...atadoption.pdf

At any rate, the majority of children available for adoption in the US have at least one special need, whether developmental, medical, physical disability, etc.
Define 'special need'? Sometimes 'special need' is age or ethnicity.

Quote:

What does "special needs" mean?

For many people the term "special needs" means a child who receives or needs special education or who has a disability of some sort. In adoption, the term is defined differently and may include the factors listed below. Guidelines for classifying a child as "special needs" vary by state. Children with special needs range in age from infants to 21 years. In general, children with special needs are those who:
  • Have physical or health problems
  • Are older
  • Are members of ethnic or racial minorities
  • Have a history of abuse or neglect
  • Have emotional problems
  • Have siblings and need to be adopted as a group
  • Test positive for HIV
  • Have documented conditions that may lead to future problems
  • Had prenatal exposure to drugs or alcohol

Almost all children who meet the special needs guidelines and who are available for adoption are currently in the public foster care system. Some have moved through several different foster placements.

Last edited by Farmer Jane; 04-26-2011 at 06:57 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-26-2011, 08:10 PM
Hermitian Hermitian is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenPained View Post
Define 'special need'? Sometimes 'special need' is age or ethnicity.
Hey, knowing how to properly fix another ethnicity's hair can be eSPECIALly difficult.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-26-2011, 08:22 PM
RandMcnally RandMcnally is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Why is it so expensive?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-26-2011, 09:01 PM
Mahaloth Mahaloth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 地球
Posts: 22,227
Why don't you just read my thread about this? My wife and I adopted from Korea.

1. We used to live in Asia and have a real heart for it.

2. We love the Korean program for adoption.

Seriously, just read the thread about it.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-26-2011, 09:04 PM
Mahaloth Mahaloth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 地球
Posts: 22,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by friedo View Post
2. It's easier.
Uh, no.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Panda View Post
American kids are fat.
This had nothing to do with our decision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kunilou View Post
I don't know any adoptive couple that didn't try to go through U.S. services before turning to overseas adoption.
My wife and I never did. Neither did a few of our friends.

Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-26-2011, 09:36 PM
Hello Again Hello Again is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenPained View Post
Define 'special need'?
I was defining it as
"severe mental health problems" (60%)
Mental retardation, cerebal palsy, or other physically-based developmental delay (20%)
Physical effects of poverty such as delayed growth and development, HIV infection, neurological disabilities, malnutrition, and asthma (30%)

Obviously there's some overlap there. Since that's 110% of children currently in foster care. But if half the kids have all the problems, then half the kids have HUGE problems. If only 70% of the kids have all the problems, then most of the kids have significant problems that would make any reasonable person hesitate.

Being older, the wrong ethnicity, etc, is an ADDITIONAL layer of difficulty, for an already extremely troubled population.

Kids without parents in foreign countries, have, I believe, the same or similar range of problems. But in Roumania, say, cold hard cash buys the prettiest, most normal-seeming one in the orphanage.

Last edited by Hello Again; 04-26-2011 at 09:39 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-27-2011, 10:00 AM
md2000 md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
My stepsister adopted a Korean orphan many decades ago; despite that the child was about a year old (nobody was sure of age) she ended up with some bad habits like hoarding food and hiding it under her bed that took almost 10 years to fix.

Imagine how messed up someone could be after an extremely bad home/foster life for 5 years... hence the "Age" issue.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-27-2011, 12:45 PM
Voyager Voyager is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 35,084
I don't have hard data, but many of my friends in NJ adopted, and the results strongly support Hello Again's data. It goes in waves - 30 years ago there were many Korean kids adopted, and for the most part they had no problems, except slight issues of grabiness from being hungry in the orphanage.

After that source was shut down, though, people adopted from Columbia and other South American countries. and one couple adopted a kid from the Rez who they were foster parents for. All of these parents were well educated, with good incomes and living in a town as close to the ideal as I know of, but the kids almost universally had mental health issues. (6 of 7.) Nonetheless, their lives were a lot better than if they had not been adopted, but it was sad to see the impact of such problems. One of problems was traced to Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, I'm not sure there was enough evidence for the rest.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-27-2011, 03:25 PM
Max Torque Max Torque is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Raiderville, TX
Posts: 9,664
My wife and I are in the "waiting-to-adopt" queue for a baby from China. The backstory is in this thread. If you count from our log-in date, we've been waiting for four and a half years. We're about to have to renew our paperwork again; fortunately, it's free this time, the last time cost close to $900.

Four and a half years. The process used to take a year, start to finish. The wait would have been intolerable but for the events detailed in that other thread. Like I said over there, we looked at domestic adoption and decided it wasn't for us. For one thing, in a domestic adoption, "open" adoption is encouraged, meaning the child will know who his/her birth parents are and may still visit or have a relationship with them. We were assured that this is usually a good thing, that it helps kids get over any residual feelings of, "my REAL mom and dad would be awesome!" by letting them know the reality. Maybe, but we still didn't want that kind of baggage. We also didn't want to jump through all the hoops and come down to the wire, only to have Birth Momma decide to keep the kid. So, we decided on China, because their process was the fastest, smoothest, most established, and most reliable. Since then, it has slowed way, way down. We expect we'll be traveling sometime next year to get Kiddo #2.

I'd still rather go with China, though. An associate of my wife's through her former workplace went through the process of adopting from Russia (and you wanna talk about bribes being built into the process, they're the kings). Twice, she actually flew to Russia to pick up her child. And both times, she was told, "Sorry, someone else adopted the kid before you." I can't even imagine going through that.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-27-2011, 04:14 PM
paperbackwriter paperbackwriter is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 1,698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hello Again View Post
The majority of babies exposed to drug/alcohol in utero are put up for adoption.
I don't think your cite says this. According to the CDC, in 2002, 1.9% of pregnant women surveyed reported binge drinking, and the same applied to the proportion that drank alcohol "frequently." Furthermore, 10.1% of pregnant women reported drinking any level of alcohol. HHS reports 4,021,726 live births in 2002. For your assertion to be correct, 402,172 babies exposed to alcohol would have to be put up for adoption just from alcohol exposure every year. Given that that would be about three times the 127,000 or so put up for adoption each year, I'd be extremely dubious.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 04-27-2011, 04:32 PM
That Don Guy That Don Guy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
I always thought the main problems was the "parents want infants and there's a years-long waiting list" problem, caused in part by some problem that some people have with letting black babies be adopted by white parents. (Presumably, the older a child is, the less likely the parents will be able to "mold" the child, or the more likely the child won't consider them as "his" (or "her," as the case may be) parents.)

There's nothing new about the long wait for infants; it was a plot point on an episode of L.A. Law about 20 years ago.

What I want to know is, is there a significant impact in terms of "gender imbalance" caused by what I assume is a greater influx of girls than boys from Asia? (I wouldn't be surprised if this was true, and caused mainly by farming families trying to "get rid of" girls because of the "one child per family" policy and the fact that "sons make better farmhands.")
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-27-2011, 04:39 PM
md2000 md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Torque View Post
... Like I said over there, we looked at domestic adoption and decided it wasn't for us. For one thing, in a domestic adoption, "open" adoption is encouraged, meaning the child will know who his/her birth parents are and may still visit or have a relationship with them. We were assured that this is usually a good thing, that it helps kids get over any residual feelings of, "my REAL mom and dad would be awesome!" by letting them know the reality. Maybe, but we still didn't want that kind of baggage. We also didn't want to jump through all the hoops and come down to the wire, only to have Birth Momma decide to keep the kid.
My step-sister said once her Korean child got some mail from there claiming to be her parent(s?). She told her to be careful - a lot of this is a scam, Koreans who found out who was adopted and tried to milk the connection for money, US immigration sponsorship, whatever. I guess in these days of cheap DNA tests it's a bit harder to pull off.

Canada, especially western Canada, went through an epsidode from about 1965to 1985 (when the supply of white babies was dwindling) where they would put out aboriginal (indian) children for adoption; often taken from nfit mothers and then the arrangement was made permanent so the child could be officially adopted. Some did not work too well - parents trying to find their long-lost children, at least one case where the native child murdered his mid-western USA parents, etc. Many came back to find their birth parents, sad reunion all around, etc.

I suppose that for many foreign countries, at first they are grateful for people who are willing to help; then the government begins to worry what their international image is if too many children are adopted out, while opportunists in the system begin to exploit the financial opportunities... Plus in many Asian cultures, "adopt an orphan" is code for "get free domestic servant" - which is why the right-thinking types in government want to put the brakes on adoptions too.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-27-2011, 05:37 PM
Max Torque Max Torque is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Raiderville, TX
Posts: 9,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by md2000 View Post
My step-sister said once her Korean child got some mail from there claiming to be her parent(s?). She told her to be careful - a lot of this is a scam, Koreans who found out who was adopted and tried to milk the connection for money, US immigration sponsorship, whatever. I guess in these days of cheap DNA tests it's a bit harder to pull off.

Canada, especially western Canada, went through an epsidode from about 1965to 1985 (when the supply of white babies was dwindling) where they would put out aboriginal (indian) children for adoption; often taken from nfit mothers and then the arrangement was made permanent so the child could be officially adopted. Some did not work too well - parents trying to find their long-lost children, at least one case where the native child murdered his mid-western USA parents, etc. Many came back to find their birth parents, sad reunion all around, etc.

I suppose that for many foreign countries, at first they are grateful for people who are willing to help; then the government begins to worry what their international image is if too many children are adopted out, while opportunists in the system begin to exploit the financial opportunities... Plus in many Asian cultures, "adopt an orphan" is code for "get free domestic servant" - which is why the right-thinking types in government want to put the brakes on adoptions too.
China has worked out most of those kinks; they require you to submit a homestudy by an accredited agency, you have to submit to criminal background checks and be fingerprinted by the FBI, and so forth. They really try to make sure you're not a nut or exploiter before you adopt.

Another thing we thought was good about China was a result of the one-child policy. See, China doesn't have Social Security; it's just socially accepted that sons will live with their parents when they're elderly and take care of them. Girls, by contrast, will live with the family of the man they marry. That means that, if Chinese people want to be cared for in their old age, they generally need to have a son. So, many of the orphans in orphanages were girls abandoned in places they'd be found quickly by ordinary families who wanted a son, rather than strung-out hookers leaving them in dumpsters or whatever. Good health, normal development, all that good stuff, just not male.

Of course, the flip side of that is the resulting gender imbalance, which the Chinese government finally noticed. Some years ago the statistic was that by 2020, there will be 40 million marriageable-age Chinese men with no female to pair up with. Realizing that that probably wouldn't be the best thing, the government (I believe) slowed down foreign adoptions and began to encourage domestic adoption in an effort to keep more girls around.

It got kinda painful for a while, when the little Torqueling got old enough to start asking questions, because we'd told her about the adoption early on and have always been open with her about the whole thing. She'd ask, "When's Baby Rachel coming? When can we go get her?" Once she even played like she was talking on her toy phone and said, "It's Baby Rachel's momma, she says we can come get her!" Breaks your heart. But now, I think it'll be neat for her, because she's old enough to go to China with us when we finally get matched.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-27-2011, 08:24 PM
md2000 md2000 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
(Side note: I recently saw an article, the Economist, I think - about marriage fraud being perpetrated on Chinese men. Women from Cambodia and Vietnam were coming to China after the guy pays a "finder's fee" to someone in the other country; they marry the desperate Chinese guy, and then disappearing a few months later with whatever more money they can take. So... it's starting already as the first big imbalance hits marriage age)

Last edited by md2000; 04-27-2011 at 08:24 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-27-2011, 09:24 PM
Mahaloth Mahaloth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 地球
Posts: 22,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyager View Post
I don't have hard data, but many of my friends in NJ adopted, and the results strongly support Hello Again's data. It goes in waves - 30 years ago there were many Korean kids adopted, and for the most part they had no problems, except slight issues of grabiness from being hungry in the orphanage.
They were in orphanages back then? My two kids from Korea(we are having a 2nd one) never spent one day in an orphanage. They were in foster care they day they left the hospital.

Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-27-2011, 09:28 PM
Mahaloth Mahaloth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: 地球
Posts: 22,227
Quote:
Originally Posted by That Don Guy View Post
What I want to know is, is there a significant impact in terms of "gender imbalance" caused by what I assume is a greater influx of girls than boys from Asia? (I wouldn't be surprised if this was true, and caused mainly by farming families trying to "get rid of" girls because of the "one child per family" policy and the fact that "sons make better farmhands.")
Uh....nearly all adoptions from Korea are boys. I don't have the percentages or anything, but we were told 85-90% male.

We got a girl, but it was an unusual occurrence. Our 2nd child will be male.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 10-08-2012, 03:28 PM
myangelmyson myangelmyson is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Welfare will not let you adopt because they will lose all the grant money they get and stuff in their pockets. As long as they can keep thousands of kids in foster homes thay can say we need more money and they get it and it goes right to the big bugs pockets. That is why people go to other countries to adopt.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 10-08-2012, 03:47 PM
Bridget Burke Bridget Burke is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Houston
Posts: 7,006
Quote:
Originally Posted by myangelmyson View Post
Welfare will not let you adopt because they will lose all the grant money they get and stuff in their pockets. As long as they can keep thousands of kids in foster homes thay can say we need more money and they get it and it goes right to the big bugs pockets. That is why people go to other countries to adopt.
Do you have any proof?
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 10-08-2012, 03:53 PM
robert_columbia robert_columbia is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by md2000 View Post
...Plus in many Asian cultures, "adopt an orphan" is code for "get free domestic servant" - which is why the right-thinking types in government want to put the brakes on adoptions too.
I think this used to be the case in western countries. For example, the idea that adopted child = domestic servant to use/abuse is seen in the novel Anne of Green Gables.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 10-08-2012, 04:00 PM
Leo Bloom Leo Bloom is offline
Keeping my password unchanged
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
We're not all Madonna, but my impression is that she went to an orphanage, like going to a dog breeder to pick out the best of the litter, flashed a checkbook, and the child was bought wrapped up with a ribbon.

Is that commensurate in any way with a line of adoption for the rest of mortals?
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 10-08-2012, 04:15 PM
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mahaloth View Post

My wife and I never did. Neither did a few of our friends.

Neither did we nor to the best of knowledge any one of our travel group.

For us it was mainly the knowledge that we as White parents would be frowned upon in a domestic agency from adopting a Black child and that there were many other White couples who very much wanted a child who looked like them. We were not concerned about that but did like the track record of healthy kids coming out of China. Hence our adopted child is from China.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 10-08-2012, 04:43 PM
alphaboi867 alphaboi867 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: the Keystone State
Posts: 11,331
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo Bloom View Post
We're not all Madonna, but my impression is that she went to an orphanage, like going to a dog breeder to pick out the best of the litter, flashed a checkbook, and the child was bought wrapped up with a ribbon.

Is that commensurate in any way with a line of adoption for the rest of mortals?
Yeah, this is basically how wealthy celebrities adopt children. With enough money every single obstacle will be waived away. And it used to work the exact same way in the US.
__________________
No Gods, No Masters
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.