Do you approve of international adoption by a biological relative?
If the relatives of a child live in another country, and the child does not have in-country relatives who can care for him or her, would you approve of international adoption for that child?
(I know some people prefer guardianship, but formal adoption is generally required for an immigrant visa to be issued to the child by the United States, because guardianship is not set up as a legally solid enough arrangement to meet US immigration requirements. Thus international guardianships are not currently a realistic option. So that's not an idea we can default to.)
The child would still lose a major piece of their culture, language, and heritage not being raised in their country of origin. They would still be issued an amended birth certificate. Do you feel it's worth it to remain with biological family? Or would you prefer some kind of domestic option for the child even if it meant separation from living family members? Which is more important?
Just curious.
MamaKate2010-01-12T13:29:08Z
Favorite Answer
I believe that there is no "blanket" way of handling adoption. Each one is different and should be "judged" on it's own individual issues and circumstances. At all times, I believe that the CHILD should be the focus of any decisions and his or her rights and interests should be protected. That being said:
In my opinion, FIT (<---key factor), willing and able biological family members should be the first choice, regardless of where they live, in any adoption. Even if legal records "must" be altered, the child still has a greater chance of retaining the truth. (As you know I do feel that permanent guardianship is a more preferable option when available but when it is not, I think kinship placement is preferable to stranger adoption whenever possible.)
If a child's family is living in a separate country from Chances are that even if they are in a different country, they will still have knowledge of the child's native language and culture. (Immigrants still retain their native tongues and traditions and missionary/expat's immediate families are generally "aware" of; if not well versed in, the other culture and language of their loved one's chosen countries.) The exceptions being distant relatives the child has never met, as AnnaBelle pointed out.
In those cases, cases of older children (Does a 15 yo want to move to another country?), emotionally fragile children (children who would be poorly effected by such a drastic change in circumstances)or children who's interests are better served by staying in their native/home countries for some other reason should have the opportunity to do just that. Again, I feel that anytime a child needs to be placed away from their biological parents, it is the the CHILD that should have the emphasis and this question highlights the need for that kind of discretion. You asked what is more important, but I think that it depends on the child and the circumstances. There is no answer that will be right or wrong for every situation. The CHILD is most important.
Its not really my place to "approve" of an adoption. I do feel like staying within the family is incredibly important though. Even if it is a different country with different cultures beliefs, its still family. They are still going to pass down the heritage of the family blood line just like the biological parents would have. The person adopting that child would also have information and personal experiences with the birth parents and can help pass that information along. In practically all situations, I always feel its best to stay with family rather than going to a complete stranger (assuming its safe and healthy to do so). In most cases, the case worker for the child will almost always turn to family first. Its what is preferred over just placing the child with strangers.
So, my answer at the moment is changeable, since this is just my first take on the subject. There might be some things that I haven't thought about, so my answer is more of a mark on a learning curve, as opposed to an official declaration.
To me, it depends on how close a relation the PAPs are. If we are talking 6th cousin, twice removed, or whatever, I think I would sooner the child stay in their own country. That is a huge culture shock, and a lot of a person's cultural identity to sacrifice for an extremely distant family member. I have extremely distant family members all over europe, particularly Ireland. Never met a one of them. I wouldn't want to leave Canada to go live with them, that's for sure! EVERYTHING I know is HERE.
If we are talking Aunt or Uncle, then yes, I'd like them to remain with their family, since those family members would have something to offer that child in the way of family history, and probably cultural history too, being that closely related.
So, I don't think it's black and white...I think the depth and significance of the relationships need to be assessed before deciding whether or not to uproot a child from their whole world.
The relative obviously is from the same culture and speaks the same language, instead of being brought up in an orphanage or by someone unknown its good to be brought up blood relative after all blood is thicker than water. It also depends on whether the relative wants to look after the child or no as that can also affect the child's psyche. It is a complex issue and very difficult to answer in few lines on this forum.
Yes in this kind of situation I would agree with it on the grounds that it's relatives that would be adopting the child. I don't particularly like IA but if it is a choice between relatives adopting through IA or a domestic adoption by a non a related person then I prefer IA as it is keeping a child with his/her relatives.