International adoption started as a way to help children get away from extreme circumstances. For example, eight war orphans were adopted from South Korea in 1955 by a family in Oregon (Jones). This story appeared in newspapers all around the United States which sparked the need for different families to be a part of this new idea. International adoption has fluctuated throughout time and is very different than what it was in the 50’s. “With different natural disasters, the rate of young teenager’s pregnancy rising, contraceptives being created, wars, laws created, and the rate of single mothers rising, it is apparent why international adoption has been increasing and decreasing over the years” (Jones). Countries, such as Russia, Ghana, and Guatemala, are closing off international adoption to end children being illegally traded for money with other countries. These countries should fight to change the laws through the Hague Convention or through another source to stop this black market, instead of giving up.

Many parents decide to adopt internationally instead of domestically. Although the costs are very similar, there can usually be different outstanding costs. When children are adopted domestically, the adoptive parents will usually help to pay for their biological mother’s bills throughout the pregnancy. This could be medical bills, birthing classes, and other things to benefit the child. In America, adoption of a newborn is very hard to find. A study done by the Children’s Bureau found that 2% of children adopted domestically in 2012 were less than a year old (Adoptions Inc.). Many adoptive parents want to have a child grow up in their home so they feel as though it is their own. Adoption internationally is a very long and complicated process, but adoption inside of America sometimes can be even longer and complicated. You first have to go through multiple interviews to see if you are even a good fit to have children. After this it takes a lot of time to find a family who is willing to give up their child. After this the family giving up the child must pick you out of other amazing people who also are just as desperate for a kid. Also, sometimes after a biological mother has given birth and sees her baby for the first time she may decide to keep her child. When this happens although the adopted parents receive their money back, they will have to deal with the pain of being so close and not being able to build their own family.  Therefore, many people decide to adopt overseas. It is usually a shorter process and sometimes can be the cheaper option. Another reason why people adopt internationally is to help save the struggling children overseas. These people usually have a tendency to help these children who don’t have a home, because everyone deserves a home. International adoption was first started to help and save war orphans and give them a safe and loving environment (Jones). Then it turned into many children who are living in poverty to be adopted to a safe and loving family in America. Now children are being taken from orphanages. This constant income of money from parents, who are trying to build a family and will do anything to accomplish this, is what created a black market for children.  

There are many different things that created the black market of international adoption. The top three are children being bought from biological parents to be sold for adoption, children being taken off the streets, and the agencies misleading the prospective adoptive parents and birth parents. In China, nearly half a dozen agencies were discovered to be purchasing almost 1,000 children who ended in foreign homes (Carney). Usually this price would be between only $300.00 and $350.00 (Carney). To adopt a child from India, for example, would be about $14,000.00 just to bring the child to America. This does not include the $3,500.00 that an agency would receive. This constant income of money is what drives these agencies to pay for these children to be adopted. The next thing that created the black market was children being taken off the streets. Although, children being taken and sold to another country would be known as child trafficking. The percentage of children who have been victims of child trafficking has risen to 27% (Home). Although this is known as child trafficking, children are still being taken and sold to a prospective adoptive parent in America. The last thing that created the black market was agencies misleading the adoptive parents and birth parents. One adoptive agency in Malawi has recently pleaded to guilty to misleading the birth parents of 37 children (Carney). The agency had told the prospective adoptive parents that the kids had been orphaned and abandoned (Carney). When these children were not abandoned. These agencies just took advantage of both sets of parents to receive money for themselves. Although some people in the black market do not do it for money, but instead for the homeless children. A woman named Laura Silsby tried to sneak 33 children from Haiti into America to house the children and later move them to an adoption agency ("International Adoption: Saving Orphans or Child Trafficking?"). Of course, this was not okay with the Haitian government so she was jailed for four months for arranging illegal travel by a Haitian court. This would be another example of the black market because these children were being taken whether they liked it or not. Because of the black market some people have bad life’s such as Tarikuwa Lemma. Tarikua jumped from adoptive family to adoptive family while trying to tell them her family was still alive at her home (Voigt). Although her biological mother did die, she had her father and many other family members who loved and supported her back in Ethiopia. She was taken from her nursery, which is very common through the black market of children in international adoption. 

A nursery is where children will live at an orphanage temporarily because sometimes a family cannot afford to feed or pay for them (Cherot). They just need a place for their child to been safe and well taken care of. Nurseries are almost always offered at orphanages depending on the funding of the orphanage (Cherot). Another option is to live in a foster home. At a foster home children receive more one-on-one attention compared to orphanages and nurseries (Jones). A problem with this is foster homes are not usually available and, if they are, usually a lot of children live in them. At a nursery parents have not consented to adoption. Because of this when prospective adoptive parents meet children they want to adopt, the adoption is held up because they need the biological parents to agree to the adoption ("There Should Be More Regulations in International Adoption"). Prospective parents are starting to realize that if they meet these children before the biological parent’s rights have been signed away, then these children could become victims of fraud ("There Should Be More Regulations in International Adoption"). This is because once these parents meet these children usually they fall in love and want to bring them to America immediately. They fill out all the paperwork and do everything they need to do, but these un-signed papers bring up a problem. When these parents cannot adopt a child from the nursery, they begin to demand that something must be done to the nursery and/or the agency. Although there is nothing they can do because the biological parents are still alive and well. Therefore, Agencies will tell these adoptive parents otherwise to not have this dilemma. Of course, this is not the best option. Selling children overseas when their parents have not signed their rights away is basically child trafficking This is exactly what the Hague Convention is made to stop. 

The Hague Convention was started to try and standardize the process of international adoption. The Hague Convention first started just as an international declaration of peace between countries (U.S. Department of State). The Hague Convention is comprised of seventy countries such as the United States of America, the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, and many other major countries (Cherot). This is where different countries come together to try and make international adoption the same everywhere (U.S. Department of State, Par. 1). By creating the same exchanges between them could make it much harder to have illegal exchanges. If the amount of money spent on adoption is limited, the number of agencies are decreased and the contracts signed are standardized then it would become harder to cheat the system. The Hague Convention is the best way to standardize this process. Many adoption agencies have international rules but what the Hague Convention will do is make it the same at every agency in every country. This way everyone knows exactly what is going on and there is no way to hide any discrepancies. However, critics say that abuses of international adoption are inevitable. Therefore, many countries will shut down their adoption agencies. These countries think that if they shut down international adoption, these abuses will no longer happen (Efrat). Russia, Ghana, Bhutan, Guatemala, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Rwanda have closed their doors to international adoption ("International Adoptions in Decline as Number of Orphans Grows"). These countries got were afraid people or adoption agencies abusing international adoption that they cut it off completely without exercising all of the options. 

Everyone should be a part of the Hague Convention instead of closing it off. The Hague Convention gives the opportunity to standardize every process of the adoption so children could not be taken, signatures could not be forged and parents would give away the rights, if they wanted. The top four countries that the United States adopts children from is China, Russia, South Korea, and Guatemala (O’Keefe). Only one out of four of those countries is officially a part of the Hague Convention. When a government of a country finds out about this abuse of international adoption they do the only thing they think they can do, closing off adoption to people not a part of the Hague Convention. This would mean cutting off adoption to 62% of the world, who are willing to give children without families a better life in America. This just does not make sense. Just because a country is not a part of the Hague Convention does not mean that this country is a part of child trafficking.  Only 121 countries out of 196 countries have not signed and ratified the Hague Convention (O’Keefe). These countries who have not signed and ratified the Hague convention are usually countries who are struggling to overcome war, poverty and disease rather than having an unwillingness to participate (O’Keefe). 

The first argument to not closing international adoption is that even though there are problems countries should fix them, instead of giving up. Elizabeth Bartholet, director of the Child Advocacy Program at Harvard who also adopted two children from Peru, said “..If a plane goes down, they don’t ground the whole airline industry… the only institution I can think of that when there’s a problem, they shut it down, is international adoption” ("International Adoption: Saving Orphans or Child Trafficking?"). Why is international adoption the only institution that people shut down after corruption? This makes it seem that there is only one option when in reality there are always more options. 

The next argument to not closing international adoption is when one country closes adoption it could affect many other countries. As one country closes their adoption agencies, another country's adoption rates skyrocket. For example, Guatemala had one child per every one-hundred births adopted before they closed their international adoption agencies ("International Adoption: Saving Orphans or Child Trafficking?"). After Guatemala closed, Ethiopia's adoptions went from less than nine-hundred a year to about four and a half thousand, 5 years later ("International Adoption: Saving Orphans or Child Trafficking?"). As these rates go up in a country, everyone wants to be a part of this lucrative business there. Some of these people involved in the business should have no part in working with children. Because of these corrupt people, all international adoption agencies get their reputations smeared. 

Instead of closing off international adoption countries should join the Hague Convention. People need to ask themselves how they would feel if one day they were taken away from their families and sent to a place they have never been, with people they have never met. After answering this question, it is very easy to realize what needs to be done. However, after this some countries still do not think that joining the Hague Convention is a big priority. Because of this America needs to create an incentive for these countries to join. When an American adopts from another country it can usually cost around $50,000.00 ("International Adoption: Saving Orphans or Child Trafficking?"). This money makes a huge difference for many agencies so, if America cut them off this would create a huge uproar. This could create a need for other countries to join the Hague Convention. This means one more country who is standardized, and could mean one more kid not being taken from their family. 

Some say international adoption is doing more harm to the child than it is good sometimes. Maggie Jones, a writer for the “New York Times”, wrote “I do not think it’s normal adopting a child from another country, of another race and paying a lot of money. I do not think it’s normal to put a child on a plane away from all its kin and different smells” (Jones). At a certain point in life, many adopted children are confused about who they are. At this point they decide to try and go back to their home country to find themselves. The problem with this is they cannot truly find themselves. They are caught in between where they were born and where they grew up. This is where a lot of critics think international adoption is doing more harm. Some families want them so much to feel just like everyone else in their family and life. This may be a good idea when they are young and may not understand exactly what adoption is, but teaching them about where they are born is not a crime. If a child ever wants to go back to see the city they were born in and try to find their biological family, then they will feel like a fish out of water. These children won’t know the culture, the language, or the city, which makes it hard to find yourself if you don’t even know where you are. Critics are then thinking that international adoption is harmful and should be stopped, but there are always more than two options. If families instead teach their adopted child about the culture and language of where they are from, then maybe they will know more about who they are. They could visit their home country and immerse themselves in the culture, learn the language, or go to a summer culture camp to be with children who could also be going through the same thing. This way if an adopted child ever wants to go back to where they were born to try and find more about themselves, then it will be easier as they already have some connection to their original culture. This way international adoption would not be doing any harm, but only good to these children. 

As one adoption agency in a country closes because of illegal trading, another one opens. This cycle will constantly keep happening unless something changes. One solution could be to standardize all countries’ adoption processes. By doing this, it is less likely to have corrupt adoption agencies because they are all now the same. The Hague Convention is known for bringing countries together to make this happen. There are only 70 countries in the Hague Convention. This means 60% of the rest of the world could be a part of illegally trading of children. Many of these countries who are not a part of the convention are poor and usually in war. However, because adoption brings in a lot of money to their economy, they would not want to give this up. If America tells them that they are cutting off international adoption with this country until they join the Hague Convention, this could give them an incentive to do something about it. Then as more and more countries join the Hague Convention this could keep one more child not at risk of being ripped away from their home and family. So, what now? International adoption needs more people to know just what exactly is going on behind the scenes. This corruption needs to stop and there are many options on how to stop it. International adoption needs more attention from the governments of these countries to save these children from being taken from their loving families. Another way to help stop the black market of international adoption is to increase the training and technology in other countries to ensure these couple of bad cases do not happen anymore ("International Adoption: Saving Orphans or Child Trafficking?"). Therefore, countries who close off international adoption, to end children being illegally traded for money with other countries, do not have the best plan of action. These countries should fight to change the laws through the Hague Convention or through another source to stop this black market, instead of giving up. If these countries just give a little bit of their time, they could save hundreds of kids. 
