This weekend, my co-editor, Jill Smolowe, and I gave a talk at an adoption conference. One of the more provocative questions from the audience came from an adoptive mom, who had adopted through the foster care system in the US and also is a social worker. Why, she said, aren't more Americans adopting kids right here in the US, as opposed to going abroad? She was polite, but the criticism was apparent--and it hit a nerve.

Both Jill and I adopted internationally, as did many in the audience. Jill pointed out that it's almost impossible to adopt an infant through the foster care system, as it can take years to formalize an adoption. A couple of audience members also talked about how, after the pain of infertility, they didn't want to take the chance of having a birthparent surface and reclaim their child. With international adoption, there is almost no chance of that.

I was thinking that it is interesting how international adoption is such a hot button issue--even at an adoption conference. Then the next day, the New York Times ran a front page story on adoptions in Guatemala, the gist of which was that willfully "naive" Americans were adopting in a system rife with corruption, in which poor birth mothers were pressured and duped into giving up their babies.

I don't doubt that there is corruption and the process is in need of reform. I am sure that if a large number of American children were being adopted by foreigners, there would be an outcry here too. It's understandable, but rather than painting adoptive parents as these imperialist villains throwing around money to get what they want, shouldn't attention be paid to the poverty, the corruption, and discrimination, which leads so many women to give their children up for adoption?

The Times story, in fact, didn't quote a single adoptive parent (the author says in the story parents were reluctant to have their names used; yet, he uses other unnamed sources in the story.) And he makes these grand assertions and insinuations, which simply don't jive with the adoptive parents I know. His story, for instance, ends with this:

“I hope she has a nice family and lives a happy life,” said the 17-year-old mother, who would not give her name. Fidgeting as she spoke, she said she hoped that her daughter, Antonietta, would return one day to visit her and that the adoptive parents would keep the newborn’s name.

Both prospects, those involved in the process say, are unlikely."

This suggests bull-headed Americans who do not respect or attempt to preserve their children's cultural heritage.

That simply doesn't jive with what what I know about adoptive parents. Not only are many adoptive parents embracing their child's birth heritage--celebrating the Chinese New Year, sending them to culture camp, and having their kids learn the language--but I can't tell you how many parents I know have kept their adoptive child's name--either as a middle name or a first name. There also is a whole cottage industry of travel consultants who specialize in arranging "homeland" trips for adopted kids and their families. And increasingly, parents are tracking down the birth parent records and arranging for visits for their kids when they're older.

Stumble It!