Borders Closed for Children: An Analysis of China’s Ban on International Adoptions
By Elaine Gao ‘28
Open or closed borders—migrants crossing the Southern border has been a consistent hot-button issue for the United States, but U.S. borders also receive a multitude of other groups of people, such as students, travelers, or adoptees. Over the past three-and-a-half decades, American families adopted about 160,000 children from China. Child abandonment due to the One-Child Policy, the inability to handle a child’s special needs, or the cultural preference for male children led to a great demand that was often filled by American couples. On September 4th, 2024, though, China announced suddenly that it would end international adoptions for Chinese children. Spokeswoman Mao Ning, as the Deputy Director of Information at the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, stated that the rule change was in accordance with the spirit of international agreements and added, “We express our appreciation to those foreign governments and families, who wish to adopt Chinese children, for their good intention and the love and kindness they have shown.”
However, many of these very families are lurching from the news. Some who have been in the adoption process for five to six years because of COVID-19’s complications have named their prospective adoptees, sent gifts to the orphanages, and even prepared the rooms for them. These families wish to continue the process, but according to Mao Ning, Beijing will now only allow foreign nationals who are relatives to adopt Chinese children. Given the Chinese government’s vague defense of its policy change, it is necessary to unpack the claim of whether or not restricting international adoptions is in line with the spirit of relevant international conventions and, furthermore, if it undermines the best interests of the child.
International Convention Regarding Adoption
The conventions and agreements referenced by the Chinese are most likely the Convention on the Rights of the Children (UNCRC) and/or the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (HCCH), to which both China is signatories. The UNCRC presents in Article 21 a conditional: “States Parties that recognize and/or permit the system of adoption shall…” Since China does recognize adoption in a more general sense, it meets this conditional and should follow the subsequent points, such as recognizing “that inter-country adoption may be considered as an alternative means of child’s care, if the child cannot be placed in a foster or an adoptive family or cannot in any suitable manner be cared for in the child’s country of origin” (A21.b). The notion that domestic adoption comes before intercountry adoption is called the Principle of Subsidiarity. Similar language can be found in 4(b) of the HCCH, which states that an adoption should only take place if competent authorities have ruled out possibilities for placement of the child within the state of origin.
The motivations for China’s recent ban are undoubtedly rooted in promoting domestic adoptions, but neither the UNCRC nor the HCCH prescribed overruling the option of intercountry adoptions. Furthermore, China is unable to ensure that domestic adoptions are widely available. Clearly, with the overturning of the One-Child policy, the number of abandoned children has decreased. However, there are still not enough institutions to house all the orphans. As of 2022, only 37% of the 159,000 orphans are in state orphanages, and the fate of the remaining 63% is not particularly positive, specifically those with disabilities or special needs. Most of them are living independently. Even the government has acknowledged that traditionally, Chinese families are less willing to adopt children with disabilities than international families because they want a completely healthy child. In fact, one-eighth of all recent international adoptions in China have been for older and handicapped children, a fact which depicts that domestic adoptions gloss over this group. Thus, as per the UNCRC or HCCH guidelines, these children cannot be cared for in their home countries and should be allowed to obtain a better life via intercountry adoption. By taking away this possibility, can China offer them an alternative and revamp the domestic orphanages and adoption systems?
The case of China’s ban also sheds light on the vagueness of international conventions in general. Be it the UNCRC or the HCCH, there are no mechanisms that detail whether or not a country is obligated to permit intercountry adoptions. There are currently 24 countries that restrict international adoptions, some with exceptions attached. Earlier this year, both Denmark and Norway decided to suspend international adoptions due to concerns over fabricated documents and procedures that obscured children’s biological origins abroad. This trend may have fed into, and influenced, the presented Chinese case and argument for international adoption suspension. However, if banning international adoptions does not serve the best interests of the children, should signatories not be held accountable in some way? Instead of eliminating the option of intercountry adoptions, countries could work towards ensuring a transparent and efficient adoption process. Unfortunately, in the status quo, there is a hole in the enforcement of international adoption rules.
Implications of China’s Ban
To assess how China’s new policy impacts the children, it is noteworthy to debunk the proposed benefits and investigate the possible harms of banning intercountry adoptions. Beyond the Chinese rationale, intercountry adoptions have received criticisms as a process to fulfill the desire for children for childless families rather than to pursue humanitarian concerns. This criticism carries little weight, as these families willingly provide a home for the orphans. In addition, there are no concrete statistics that prove most couples who engage in intercountry adoptions are childless. It boils down to this: one could decry international adoption as social engineering if they want, but it does not change the fact that the end result will often be better for the child. On a different note, some Chinese adoptees have expressed their catharsis as a response to the ban, as even if the adoption families are incredibly loving, these children often suffer huge trauma—the feelings of being treated and approached as “other”—in the United States or other foreign countries. Numerous studies have found that adoptees in general suffer from depression due to the broken connection with their birth parents and birth country. While some recognize being adopted as a wonderful gift, others rejoice that future generations will be able to grow up in a community with racial peers. However, their optimism is contingent upon the ability of the Chinese government to adequately care for all of its orphans and arrange adoptions for them.
Thus, despite China’s rising economic prowess, it is unable to offer a proper home for the majority of its special needs orphans. At an early stage of implementing the ban, it is uncertain if China will couple it with other policies to address this crisis. If left unattended, children that could have grown up in the United States would potentially age out in underfunded and overcrowded orphanages, which often breed a ground for infection where infant girls lay “two or three to a bed.” Special needs orphans are then expected to enter a society that can hardly be considered as friendly toward people with medical needs. Past adoption histories demonstrate that for disabled Chinese children from poorer provinces who lacked sufficient medical resources, their international adoptive parents often have provided opportunities to fund any necessary care. Thus, Chinese children could also be missing out on opportunities to receive essential support. As a result of the ban, the distress of American families is intensely evident, as these children’s interests are at risk. Due to China’s leading position in the world, though, it is concerning that this international adoption ban could become a precedent for other countries to do away with intercountry adoption as well.
