International adoption

Saviours or kidnappers?

Amid catastrophe in Haiti, a new controversy about adoptions

See article

Readers' comments



After reading the many comments of those who are accusing adoption agencies of being a business, I took the advice of one commenter and went to to look up UNICEF. $217 million revenue. $40 million surplus. The top five employees of UNICEF all made $168,000 and up (some over $200,000) per year. 104 employees made more than $50,000, and their CEO, Caryl Stern made $361,250 according to their 2008 tax data. So - hhmmmm, if adoption agencies are a business, isn't UNICEF a business as well? Just because someone gets paid for doing a job doesn't mean the job has no humanitarian benefits.

I agree with those commenting in these posts that children have the right to a permanent, loving, safe family. A child's biological parents are most ideal. Remaining in their birth country is also desirable, as long as they are in a safe family setting with their human needs met. However, in so many countries, this is impossible. Would I like to see world poverty, disease, and other issues which cause a biological parent to be unable to care for a child eradicated? Yes, of course. Do I support humanitarian efforts to ease the suffering of poor countries? Yes. I donate my $$ to many of these charities. But in the meantime, children are still waiting in orphanages. They deserve families.

I work for an adoption agency, My salary is 20% less than someone in my field who does not work in the adoption industry. And the families that I see are - the majority - adopting older children, above age 5, and with special needs. Children that with the right medical care, can thrive. Children who would be the last to be adopted in their native country. These families are motivated to share their love and blessings with a child who otherwise would not have such gifts. Often these families have biological children already. They simply want to open their homes and hearts to a child who would otherwise not have a loving family. They go through mountains of paperwork, inspections, scrutiny, fingerprints, and $$$ to give the gift of a family to a child. Please do not fault them for that. My thought is that those commenting negatively on international adoption have no actual experience with it whatsoever.

And by the way, of course, I think that Laura Silsby, who kidnapped the Haitian children was a do-do head.


I am afraid you misrepresent several issues in your February 6th article, “Saviours or kidnappers?” First, while American federal law does not require a specific number of post-placement reports on an adopted child, it is because each state has its own requirements. Hague Accredited adoption agencies require families to contractually agree to post-placement reports before adoption of the child as required by the child’s country of origin as well as the laws of their state. Next, regarding the cost of adoption, the amount ($30,000) that you quoted fails to mention that this includes travel expenses for the adoptive family and adopted child, as well as country and orphanage fees. The portion of the cost which represents adoption agency fees is less than 25% of this amount. US Hague Accredited adoption agencies support the Hague treaty and all rules which help to ensure that international adoptions are ethical and in the best interest of the child. While we cannot claim to solve all the world’s poverty and abuse problems, to ask that a child wait in an orphanage until those problems are solved is cruel. Every child deserves a loving, permanent family.


There are very few accurately researched articles about the adoption industry in and for the U.S. in the mainstream press. It does not surprise me that it's "The Economist" which has published this keen, objective look into the industry. Please consider publishing a series on the subject. The many abuses need to be aired for all to see.


It's very hard to say this. But the fact is, international adoption is a market. One party wants to sell a commodity that's in demand. The other party wants to buy it and can afford to do so.

There may be bad buyers and sellers, but if we are honest about the nature of the transaction we can identify these. I don't think adopters are necessarily exploitative. Once the gruesome deal is done, what started out as a commodity can easily turn into a much loved member of the family just like anyone else. In many cases the adopted child will be very happy with his situation as he grows up.

Also, I think it ill behoves people who have conceived a natural family to take a superior attitude towards those that adopt. We're all the same: people adopt because they don't have children; people that do have children don't adopt because they don't need to.

W. Foster Tidwell






teodor - romania

i agree with Rupert Wolfe Murray comments on Romania international adoption situation.
personally i disagree with international adoption in the majority of the cases - now in Romania i know people that want to adopt and it taked years to be able to do it - because the legislation is very birocratic on one hand and because of the lack of adoptable childs on the other hand.
howver the international adoption business have led to many abuses ( i don't blame the parents who adopted romanian childs) but i blame on the international adoption agencies who have done a big business of that.
i cannot forget one case- the international adoptions have been banned in 2001 and in 2004 there have been an excuse for almost 200 kids to be adopted by italian families ( romania was supposed to receive approval to join EU, and mr berlusconi made a special request to the romanian authorities to make an exception in this case)...


The blog seems to me pretty fair, even generous, to the 'adopters' given that at least some of the children taken seem not to have been orphans or to have come from an earthquake zone. Whatever you think generally this seems dubious opportunism.

I Blame the Parents




I share JDEF disappointment with the superficiality and lack of respect for families who submit themself to an ordeal of years suffering and waiting to make a child (and themsleves, why not?) happy. The comment about blonde girls is offensive and not in line with the Economist's high standards.
I would just add a few points from personal experience:
1) it would be appropriate to differentiate between the situation and practice in the US and the European countries which are members of the Hague convention. The profits described by some of the commentators would clearly be impossible in Europe where the whole procedure is under strict state supervision.
2) The Hague prescribes long and cumbersome procedures for both the origin country of the child and the country of the adoptive parents. Sometimes this results in both children and parents waiting for years. It is very arguable whether it is good for the child to wait in an orphanage in a poor country instead of starting to adapt in his/her new life as soon as possible, but, at least, nobody can be accused of not making all the appropriate checks.
3) some countries impose their own rules, sometimes absurd, on top of the Hague. For example, 5 or even 10 years of marriage for the adoptive parents (10 years is the case of Haiti) or looking for relatives until the 6th degree before the child can be declared adoptable (Ecuador - how delighted poor distant relatives would be to get another stomach to fill, is to be seen). Who takes advantage from these additional conditions? Certainly not the child. But, again, these rules are imposed with the well intentioned purpose to ensure that adoption is really the best solution for the child.
4) I agree that international adoption is not a solution against poverty. It is also unfair towards the children who are not adoptable for any reason. We would all be happy if there were no children in orphanages. But reality is different and I don't see why criminalize inter-country adoption which at least improves the lot of some children.
5) The criminal abuse and stupidity of some well meaning amateurs such as the Americans in Haiti should not cover with mud a process which can bring a lot of happiness to families and children.
6) ighteous idealists who have never had anything to do with the drama of wanting a family and trying to adopt should shut up.

Dat Nouc


Mr. Cid





Rupert Wolfe Murray





Dat Nouc

The good news is that everyone appears to care about the best interest of children. However, what people consider to be in the best interests of children vary's from place to place. People aren't all the same everywhere and the developed world doesn't have a monopoly on morality - and we indigene's aren't helpless victims incapable of managing our own affairs. [The largest NGO operating in Haiti where the local red cross who's 10,000 members where first on the scene.]

Intercountry adoption is a marginal activity at best - if you really care about children, I would suggest you lobby your local politician on the issue of Haitian debt as this will have the biggest impact on child and family welfare in the long run.












Dat Nouc

This debate regarding adoption is largely an American cultural dispute fought by extremists on both sides as a proxy war in developing countries. (A similar cultural war by proxy is being fought out at the moment in Malawi regarding gay rights.)

Two different sides of the same neo-colonialist coin (which your NGOs and corporations will pocket, regardless of which side wins).

Now that institutional care is out of vogue and the US dominated world bank/IMF won't fund third world governments to provide state care for children in special circumstances, aid will only be forthcoming to those states willing to hand over this important state responsibility to 'expert' foreign PVOs or corporations.

The 'follow the money' argument is applied selectively by some of your commenters - SOS-Kinderdorf, for instance, has a turnover of $1 billion a year and the Bush appointed head of UNICEF is on $450k salary per year. It's an unfortunate fact that since the 1970s and the advance of free market thinking, many important functions once performed by states has been handed over to the NGO industry.

The real issue in Haiti is more complex....

Rupert Wolfe Murray




Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

