Journal of Child and Family Studies

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 106–119 | Cite as

Does the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption Adequately Protect Orphaned and Vulnerable Children and Their Families?

Original Paper


The Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption, designed to protect the best interests of the child in intercountry adoption, has been signed by 83 nations. We evaluate both the strengths and the weaknesses of the Convention in achieving this purpose and also in protecting a second vulnerable population, birth families. A case study example of the United States’ implementation of the Hague requirements reveals several weaknesses with respect to non-Convention countries as sending nations, financial oversight, and oversight of foreign collaborators. International birth families, especially birth mothers giving consent to an adoption, are often vulnerable because of a lack of power and resources, as well as different cultural understandings of the nature of family and adoption. We conclude that in order to protect vulnerable children and birth families, individual sending and receiving countries need to supplement the Hague Convention with specific, contextually appropriate laws and regulations.


Intercountry adoption Orphan Vulnerable Children Birth mother Hague convention 


  1. Abebe, T. (2009). Orphanhood, poverty and the care dilemma: Review of global policy trends. Social Work and Society. Retrieved from
  2. Bailey, J. D. (2009a). Expectations of the consequences of new international adoption policy in the US. Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, XXXVI(2), 169–183.Google Scholar
  3. Bailey, J. D. (2009). Orphan care: An introduction. Social Work and Society. Available from
  4. Balsari, S., Lemery, J., Williams, T. P., & Nelson, B. D. (2010). Protecting the children of Haiti. New England Journal of Medicine. e25(1).Google Scholar
  5. Bartholet, E. (2007). International adoption: Thoughts on the human rights issues. Buffalo Human Rights Law Review, 13, 151–207.Google Scholar
  6. Bergquist, K. J. S. (2009). Operation babylift or baby abduction?: Implications of the Hague Convention on the humanitarian evacuation and “rescue” of children. International Social Work, 52, 621–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Borshay Liem, D. (Producer & Director). (2000). First person plural [Documentary film]. USA: MU films.Google Scholar
  8. Bos, P. (2007). Once a mother. Relinquishment and adoption from the perspective of unmarried mothers in south India. PhD dissertation. Nijmegen University. Retrieved from
  9. Bowie, F. (2004). Adoption and the circulation of children. In F. Bowie (Ed.), Cross-cultural approaches to adoption (pp. 3–20). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Braune, F., Biller-Andorno, N., & Wiesemann, C. (2006). Human reproductive cloning: A test case for individual rights? In H. Roetz (Ed.), Cross-cultural issues in bioethics: The example of human cloning (pp. 445–458). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Rodopi.Google Scholar
  11. Bunkers, K. M. (2010). Informal family-based care options: Protecting children’s rights? A case study of Gudifecha in Ethiopia. Geneva, Switzerland: Institut Universitaire Kurt Bosh and Universite de Fribourg.Google Scholar
  12. Bunkers, K. M., Groza, V., & Lauer, D. (2009). International adoption and child protection in Guatemala: A case of the tail wagging the dog. International Social Work, 52, 649–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cheney, K. (2011). Whose “best interests”? Revisiting African orphan circulation and children’s rights in the age of HIV/AIDS. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Anthropological Association Child Interest Group, Charleston, SC.Google Scholar
  14. Christian, C. L., McRoy, R. G., Grotevant, H. D., & Bryant, C. M. (1997). Grief resolution of birthmothers in confidential, time-limited mediated, ongoing mediated, and fully disclosed adoptions. Adoption Quarterly, 1, 35–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Comisión Pro-convención sobre los Derechos del Niño. (1996). Entre el olvido y laesperanza: La niñez de Guatemala [Between negligence and hope: Childhoodin Guatemala]. Guatemala City, Guatemala: Editorial HIGSA GALA.Google Scholar
  16. Congreso de la República de Guatemala (2007). Decreto Número 77-2007. Retrieved from
  17. Council on Accreditation (COA) (2007). Hague accreditation and approval standards. New York, NY: Author. Retrieved from
  18. Cushman, L. F., Kalmuss, D., & Namerow, P. B. (1997). Openness in adoption: Experiences and social psychological outcomes among birth mothers. Marriage and Family Review, 25, 7–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Degeling, J. (2010). The special commission on the 1993 Hague Intercountry Adoption Convention. Ontario Adoption Summit, Waterloo University, Canada. Retrieved from
  20. Dickens, J. (2009). Social policy approaches to intercountry adoption. International Social Work, 52, 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dillon, S. (2009). The missing link: A social orphan protocol to the United Nations convention on the rights of the child. Suffolk University Law School, Legal Studies Research Paper Series, Research Paper, 09–02–2008. Retrieved July 01, 2010, from
  22. Dolgin, G. (Producer), Dolgin, G., & Franco, V. (Directors). (2002). Daughter from Danang. [Documentary film.] United States: American Experience and the Independent Television Service in association with the National Asian American Communication Association.Google Scholar
  23. Ennew, J. (2005). Prisoners of childhood: Orphans and economic dependency. In J. Qvortrup (Ed.), Studies of modern childhood: Society, agency and culture (pp. 128–146). London, UK: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  24. Ethiopian Ministry of Health and Federal HIV and AIDS Prevention and Control Office. (2008). Single Point HIV prevalence estimate document. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia French Central Authority, Service de l’Adoption Internationale. Retrieved from
  25. Fadare, J. O., & Porteri, C. (2010). Informed consent in human subject research: A comparison of current international and Nigerian guidelines. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 5(1), 67–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fessler, A. (2006). The girls who went away: The hidden history of women who surrendered children for adoption in the decades before Roe v. Wade. New York, NY: Penguin.Google Scholar
  27. Fonseca, C. (2004). The circulation of children in a Brazilian working-class neighborhood: A local practice in a globalized world. In F. Bowie (Ed.), Cross-cultural approaches to adoption (pp. 165–181). London, UK: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Freundlich, M. (2000). Adoption and ethics: The market forces in adoption. Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.Google Scholar
  29. Gamble, D. N., & Weil, M. (2010). Community practice skills: Local to global perspectives. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Gibbons, J. L., Wilson, S. L., & Schnell, A. M. (2009). Foster parents as a critical link and resource in international adoptions from Guatemala. Adoption Quarterly, 12, 59–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Giesbrecht, T. G. (2011). Protecting the integrity of international adoptions through education of birth families prior to consent signing. Presented at the meeting of the Society for Cross-Cultural Research, Charleston, SC.Google Scholar
  32. Graff, E. J. (2010). The baby business. Democracy: A journal of ideas, 17 Retrieved from
  33. Gresham, K., Nackerud, L., & Risler, E. (2004). Intercountry adoption from Guatemala and the United States: A comparative policy analysis. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 1(3/4), 1–20.Google Scholar
  34. Groza, V., Ileana, D., & Irwin, I. (1999). A peacock or a crow? Stories, interviews and commentaries on Romanian adoptions. South Euclid, OH: Willes e-press.Google Scholar
  35. Hall, A., & Midgley, J. O. (2004). Social policy for development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  36. Han, S. (2010). Dreaming a world: Korean birth mothers tell their stories. St. Paul, MN: Yeong & Yeong Book Company.Google Scholar
  37. Harper, C. J., Pennell, J., & Weil, M. (2002). Family group conferencing: Evaluation guidelines. Englewood, CO: American Humane Association.Google Scholar
  38. Högbacka, R. (2010). ‘At the end of the day it’s my child’in(ter)country adoption as experienced by South African birth mothers. Presented at the International Conference on Adoption Research (ICAR3), Leiden, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  39. Hollingsworth, L. D. (2003). International adoption among families in the United States: Considerations of social justice. Social Work, 48(2), 209–217.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hollingsworth, L. D. (2008). Commentary: Does the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption address the protection of adoptees’ cultural identity? And should it? Social Work, 53(4), 377–379.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000, PL. 106–279,114 Stat. 825. (2000).Google Scholar
  42. International Committee of the Red Cross. (2010). Haiti earthquake: No effort must be spared in reuniting children with their families. Retrieved February 25, 2010, from
  43. International Social Service [ISS]. (2010). Earthquake in Haiti: Intercountry adoption cases. Retrieved from
  44. Jacobs, B., Roffenbender, J., Collmann, J., Cherry, K., Bitsói, L. L., Bassett, K., & Evans, C. H., Jr. (2010). Bridging the divide between genomic science and indigenous peoples. Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 38(3), 684–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Joe, B. (1978). In defense of intercountry adoption. The Social Service Review, 52(1), 1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Johnson, K. (2004). Wanting a daughter, needing a son: Abandonment, adoption, and orphanage care in China. St. Paul, MN: Yeong & Yeong Book Company.Google Scholar
  47. Johnson, K., Banghan, H., & Liyao, W. (1998). Infant abandonment and adoption in China. Population and Development Review, 24(3), 469–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Johnson Butterfield, A. K., & Alemu, T. (2006). Adoption in Africa. In K. S. Stolley & V. L. Bullough (Eds.), The Praeger handbook of adoption (Vol. 1, pp. 66–70). New York, NY: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  49. Johnson, A. K., Edwards, R. L., & Puwak, H. (2003). Foster care and adoption policy in Romania: Suggestions for international intervention. Child Welfare, LXXII(5), 489–506.Google Scholar
  50. Krogstad, D. J., Diop, S., Diallo, A., Mzayek, F., Keating, J., Koita, O. A., et al. (2010). Informed consent in international research: The rational for different approaches. American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 83, 743–747.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Kunz, D., & Reese, A. (2010). More on the “Baby Business:” Comments on responses. Retrieved from
  52. Leinaweaver, J. B. (2008). The circulation of children: Kinship, adoption, and morality in Andean Peru. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  53. Liss, M. B., & McKinley-Pace, M. J. (1999). Best interests of the child: New twists on an old theme. In R. Roesch, S. D. Hart, & J. R. P. Ogloff (Eds.), Psychology and the law. The state of the discipline (pp. 339–368). New York, NY: Plenum Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Lykes, M. B. (1989). Dialogue with Guatemalan Indian women: Critical perspectives on constructing collaborative research. In R. K. Unger (Ed.), Representations: Social constructions of gender (pp. 167–185). Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing Co.Google Scholar
  55. Lyons, K. (2006). Globalization and social work. International and local implications. British Journal of Social Work, 36, 365–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Maskew, T. (2010). Implementing your recommendations: Best practices for maximum impact. Ontario Adoption Summit. Waterloo, Canada: Waterloo University.Google Scholar
  57. Masson, J. (2001). Intercountry adoption: A global problem or a global solution? Journal of International Affairs, 55(1), 141–154.Google Scholar
  58. McKinney, L. (2007). International adoption and the Hague Convention: Does implementation of the convention protect the best interests of children? Whittier Journal of Child and Family Advocacy, 361, 368–412.Google Scholar
  59. Mezmur, B. (2008). From Angelina (to Madonna) to Zoe’s Ark: What are the “A–Z” lessons for intercountry adoptions in Africa. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 23(2), 123–145.Google Scholar
  60. Mezmur, B. D. (2009). Intercountry adoption as a measure of last resort in Africa: Advancing the rights of a child rather than a right to a child. Sur International Journal on Human Rights, 6, 83–103.Google Scholar
  61. Morales, N., & Rodas, F. (2006). Disturbios: 1 muerto y 28 casas quemadas [Disturbances: 1 dead and 28 houses burned]. Prensa Libre, retrieved from
  62. News Services. (2010). Many children taken by Americans not orphans (3 Feb). World News. Accessed 14 Feb, 2010, at id/35221007/.
  63. Nakkash, R., Makhoul, J., & Afifi, R. (2009). Obtaining informed consent: Observations from community research with refugee and impoverished youth. Journal of Medical Ethics, 35, 638–643. doi:10.1136/jme.2008.028936.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. New York Times (2010). Room for debate: Haiti’s children and the adoption question. Retrieved from
  65. Ngabonziza, D. (1991). Moral and political issues facing relinquishing countries. Adoption & Fostering, 15, 75–80.Google Scholar
  66. Nussbaum, M. C. (1999). Sex and social justice. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 3–72.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Pace, C., Emanuel, E. J., Chuenyam, C. D., Bebcuk, J. D., Wendler, J. A., Tavel, J. A., et al. (2005). The quality of informed consent in a clinical research study in Thailand. IRB: Ethics and Human Research, 27, 9–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Pardasani, M., Chazin, R., & Fortinsky, L. (2010). The Orphans International Tanzania (OIT) family care model: Strengthening networks and empowering families. Journal of HIV/AIDS & Social Services, 9, 305–321. doi:10.1080/15381501.2010.502811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Parents for Ethical Adoption Reform (PEAR). (2010). PEAR’s response to “The baby business.” Available from
  71. Ritvo, J. (Producer), Raizman, D., & Ritvo, J. (Directors). (2008). One family: An Ethiopian adoption. USA: 123 Main Productions.Google Scholar
  72. Reichert, E. (2003). Social work and human rights: A foundation for policy and practice. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Roby, J. L. (2004). Understanding sending country’s traditions and policies in international adoptions: Avoiding cultural and legal pitfalls. Journal of Law and Family Studies, 303, 1–23.Google Scholar
  74. Roby, J. L. (2007). From rhetoric to best practice: Children’s rights in intercountry adoption. Children’s Legal Rights Journal, 27(3), 48–71.Google Scholar
  75. Roby, J. L., & Ife, J. (2009). Human rights, politics, and intercountry adoption: An examination of two sending countries. International social work, 52, 661–671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Roby, J., & Matsumura, S. (2002). If I give you my child, aren’t we family? A study of birthmothers participating in Marshall Islands–U.S. adoptions. Adoption Quarterly, 5(4), 7–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Roby, J. L., & Shaw, S. A. (2006). The African orphan crisis and intercountry adoption. Social Work, 51(3), 199–210.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Roby, J. L., Wyatt, J., & Pettys, G. (2005). Openness in international adoptions: A study of U.S. parents who adopted children from the Marshall Islands. Adoption Quarterly, 8(3), 47–71. doi:10.1300/J145v08n02_03.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Rotabi, K. S. (2008). Intercountry adoption baby boom prompts new U.S. standards. Immigration Law Today, 27(1), 12–19.Google Scholar
  80. Rotabi, K. S. (2009). Guatemala City: Hunger protests amid allegations of child kidnapping and adoption fraud. Social Work and Society News Magazine. Available from
  81. Rotabi, K. S. (2010). From Guatemala to Ethiopia: Shifts in intercountry adoption leaves Ethiopia vulnerable for child sales and other unethical practices. Social Work and Society News Magazine. Available from
  82. Rotabi, K. S. (in press). Intercountry adoption. In Healy, L. M., & Link, R. J. (Eds.). Handbook of international social work. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Rotabi, K. S., & Bergquist, K. J. S. (2010). Vulnerable children in the aftermath of Haiti’s earthquake of 2010: A call for sound policy and processes to prevent international child sales and theft. Journal of Global Social Work Practice. Retrieved from
  84. Rotabi, K. S., & Bunkers, K. M. (2008). Intercountry adoption reform based on the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption: An update on Guatemala in 2008. Social Work and Society News Magazine. Retrieved from
  85. Rotabi, K. S., & Gibbons, J. L. (2009). Editorial. International Social Work, 52, 571–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Rotabi, K. S., & Morris, A. W. (2007). Adoption of Guatemalan children: Impending changes under the Hague Convention for Intercountry Adoption. Social Work and Society News Magazine. Retrieved from
  87. Rotabi, K. S., Morris, A. W., & Weil, M. O. (2008). International child adoption in a post-conflict society: A multi-systemic assessment of Guatemala. Journal of Intergroup Relations, XXXIV(2), 9–41.Google Scholar
  88. Ryan, A. S. (1983). Intercountry adoption and policy issues. Journal of Children in Contemporary Society, 15(3), 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Selman, P. (2002). Intercountry adoption in the new millennium: The ‘quiet migration’ revisited. Population Research and Policy Review, 21, 205–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Selman, P. (2006). Trends in intercountry adoption 1998–2004: Analysis of data from 20 receiving countries. Journal of Population Research, 23(2), 183–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Selman, P. (2009). The rise and fall of intercountry adoption in the 21st century. International Social Work, 52, 575–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Selman, P. (2010). Recent trends in intercountry adoption. Ontario Adoption Summit, Waterloo University, Waterloo, Canada. Retrieved from
  93. Singer, P. (2002). One world: The ethics of globalization. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  94. Smolin, D. M. (2004). Intercountry adoption as child trafficking. Valparaiso Law Review, 3(2), 281–335.Google Scholar
  95. Smolin, D. M. (2005). The two faces of intercountry adoption: The significance of the Indian adoption scandals. Seton Hall Law Review, 35(2), 403–493.Google Scholar
  96. Smolin, D. M. (2006). Child laundering: How the intercountry adoption system legitimizes and incentivizes the practices of buying, trafficking, kidnapping, and stealing children. Wayne Law Review, 52(113), 113–200.Google Scholar
  97. Smolin, D. M. (2007). Intercountry adoption and poverty: A human rights analysis. Capital University Law Review, 36, 413–453. Retrieved from
  98. Smolin, D. M. (2008). Child laundering and the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption: The future and past of intercountry adoptions. University of Louisville Law Review, 48, 441–498.Google Scholar
  99. Terre des Hommes & UNICEF (Co-producers), & Sylvain, S-A. (Director) (2010). Paper Orphans [Documentary film]. UK: Image Ark Pvt. LTD.Google Scholar
  100. The Hague Conference on Private International Law. (1993). The Hague Convention on protection of children and co-operation in respect of Intercountry Adoption (1993). Retrieved from
  101. The Hague Conference on Private International Law. (2008). The implementation and operation of the 1993 Hague Intercountry Adoption Convention, guide to good practice (p. 15). Guide No.1. Family Law. Bristol, UK: Author.Google Scholar
  102. Triseliotis, J. (2000). Intercountry adoption: Global trade or global gift? Adoption & Fostering, 24(2), 45–54.Google Scholar
  103. UNAIDS, UNICEF & USAID. (2004). Children on the brink. New York, NY: UNICEF. Available from
  104. United Nations General Assembly (2010). Sixty-fifth session, Third Committee: Promotion and protection of the right of children. Agenda Item 64, A/C.3/65/L.21/Rev.1, 18 November 2010, New York, NY.Google Scholar
  105. United States Department of State Office of Children’s Issues. (2010). Adoption alert: Guatemala. Available from
  106. United States Department of State Office of Children’s Issues. (n. d.). Accredited adoption providers. Available from d = 01.
  107. Vonk, M. E., Sims, P. J., & Nackerud, L. (1999). Political and personal aspects of intercountry adoption of Chinese children in the United States. Families in Society, 80, 496–505.Google Scholar
  108. Wiley, M. O., & Baden, A. L. (2005). Birth parents in adoption: Research, practice, and counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 33, 13–50. doi:10.1177/0011000004265961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Yemm, L. M. (2010). International adoption and the “best interests” of the child: Reality and reactionism in Romania and Guatemala. Washington University Global Studies Law Review, 9, 555–574.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Social WorkVirginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologySaint Louis UniversitySt. LouisUSA

Personalised recommendations