Adoption debate

Adoption debate

During the past years, I have participated more and more in the debate on adoption in general and as a phenomenon. As a child and teenager this was just the situation, but as years have pasted I have become more and more critical to transnational adoption. Specially to transracial adoptions. The difference is transnational adoption is adoption from another country, but transracial adoption is adoption of a child from a different race, also known as overseas adoption.

Transracial adoptions to Denmark sparked in around 1960's with adoptions from South Korea, where also I am adopted from. Before that adoptions to Denmark mainly have been from neighbouring countries and contries not that far away, like Finland and Austria. The big difference is, these children come from a culture not that distant from the danish, and also with the Kaukazian look. They will blend in among the Danish people without anyone questioning. I have a friend I have known for years, but it wasn't until few months ago he told me he too was adopted, but from Austria. I would never have guessed. We, transracial adoptees, we don't blend in the same way. When meeting new people the first quostion usely is: "Where do you come from?" This can be quite tirering sometimes. On the other hand forreigners are far quicker to open up to you, as they consider me as a fellow.

Recently the only approved Danish adoption agency, DIA, announced they put international adoptions to a stop by the New Year. It's not because they suddenly have gotten scrubbles over this, but because they do not earn enogh money on this any longer. This raises the first two questions: Why should anyone earn money on adoption? And can this then be considered to state approved human trafficing?

Another question adoption raises: Is having a child a human right? Looking at adoption from a Western point of view, one can suspect this. If a child doesn't come naturally, you can always 'order' a child from abroad or you can go to a clinic and have them help you out. It's almost like webshopping - you can purchase whatever you desire. Even a child.

Next question: Is adoption for the childs best, or to cover for the parents desires? The baby child never asks to be adopted - only the adoptive parents asks for this. I acknowledge that sometimes it is nessecary to remove a child from the family home due to abuse, knecklege or violence. I do believe a foster home will in most cases be the childs best, rather than adoption. Adoption is very final. The child will administrative be cut from its roots and replaced. Therefore I call for the administrators in a broader scence looking for possibilities to place the child with relatives - aunts, uncles, cousins, 2nd or 3rd cousins, grandparents or so. By this the child will still be connected with its roots, even it has been removed from its family home. If this is not possible, then look for adults around the child which it know and feel secure with, like neighbours, teachers, friends of the family, before going to strangers. Being taken away from the parents can be a scary and traumatizing experience to the child - by placing it with people already known to the child, the experience will be eased.

Why am I so against transracial adoptions - I am one myself? Transracial adoption is not just moving a child from its family home to relatives or families known to the child, nor even to a family from its own country or culture. It is not even moved within its own race, but often moved from asian, african or south american to white kaukasian families. This makes the child very likely will distance itself as it grows older. By this I mean, the child will find it harder to mirror itself in the family and culture, as it becomes more and more aware of what seperates. It will in many cases develop a greater urge to find its roots and find the answers to why it ended up where it did. This is why TV-shows like "Sporløs" (Denmark) and "Long Lost Family" are so popular. Not only to the viewers, but in greater extend to the children themselves.

Instead of adopting the children away from the poorer countries, the adoption nations should work harder on how to assist the families to keep their children, or the countries to care for the children left by their families, that they can stay and one day support their own country instead. I am therefore glad that the UN has focused on this issue that the countries are alliged to work on assisting the families to keep their children, instead of adoption.

I also therefore see it as a big problem, that the danish Prime Minister, Mette Frederiksen, in her first annual New Year Speech was so focused on adoption. Not just adoption, but that more children shall be removed from their family homes and adopted off. This shows to me she has not considred all the issues of adoption, or she is being very badly guided. I hope she'll come to her senses again, and better sooner than later. This could become a future scandal on the level she just appollogized to the children of Greenland.