Adoption Trends and Processes- Domestic and Abroad

Running Head:ADOPTION: TRENDS AND PROCESSES; DOMESTIC AND ABROAD 1
Adoption: Trends and Processes
Domestic and Abroad
Jessica Hipchen
University of Georgia

ADOPTION: TRENDSAND PROCESSES; DOMESTIC AND ABROAD 2
History and Overview
According to the U.S. Department of State (2013), “intercountry and domestic adoption
both consist of the legal transfer of parental rights and responsibilities from a child’s birth
parent(s) or other guardian to a new parent or parents.” Additionally, according to the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (2007), foster care is defined as “temporary service
provided by States for children who cannot live with their families. Children in foster care may
live with relatives or with unrelated foster parents. Foster care can also refer to placement
settings such as group homes, residential care facilities, emergency shelters, and supervised
independent living.”
Adoption and foster-care have developed a tremendous amount over the last century.
Progress, slow as it may seem, is being made. For instance, foster-care and adoption were
relatively non-existent due to parent’s lack of knowledge about their options once a child was
born (Palacios & Amorós, 2006; Palacios & Brodzinsky, 2010). Throughout the past decades,
adoption and foster-care programs have taken off, and specific examples will be further
discussed. These events paved the way for change and transition of the adoption and foster-care
systems (Palacios & Amorós, 2006). They also provide a comprehensive picture of the history of
adoption and foster-care, as well as current research on adoptive parents, children, and
implications for practice.
In the past, adoption and foster-care have earned bad reputations. This is due to events
such as orphan trains or foundling homes in the United States where the best interest at the time
may have been the child, however, the results did not reflect this. For example, in the 1850s,
children were sent to Arizona on orphan trains and sold to farmers as a source of labor. The idea
behind the orphan trains was not to mirror slavery but rather to provide these parentless children

with stable homes (Palacios & Brodzinsky, 2010). Although the children gained homes, the love
and support were not being provided, showing that the best interest was not that of the child.
Regardless, vulnerable children were exploited whether it was intentional or unintentional.
Likewise, foundling homes, much like orphanages, were often overcrowded and had high rates
of illness, developmental delays, and mortality (Palacios & Brodzinsky, 2010, p. 271). Together,
cases such as these created a bad image for the adoption and foster-care programs.
To address the bad reputation, governments have changed policies. For example, Spain
was once a dictatorship, which greatly hindered the growth of the field of adoption and foster-
care. Only after Spain became a socialist country did advancements start to occur. In 1987 and
1996, old policies were changed and new policies were formed that gave basic guidelines for
foster-care and adoption. “The best interests of the child should be considered the main priority;
and decision making should be carried out by professionals in child protections and social
services, but overseen by a subsequent judicial control”(Palacios & Amorós, 2006, p. 922). The
main objective of this legislation was to put more control into the hands of specialists rather than
solely the government.
However, it is important to keep in mind some of the obstacles that researchers and
specialists come into contact with when studying the statistics for adoption and foster-care; for
example, the lack of coordinated national data (Palacios & Amorós, 2006). Researchers can help
reduce this issue by implementing strategies such as the one in Spain in which they gather
information from different regions and from these regions, have discovered information such as
the fact that the birth rate has decreased in the last decade and there are now a high number of
special needs children available for adoption within Spain. We have also learned that there has
been an increase in adoptions within Europe. However, Spain’s main inter-country adoptions are

from China, Russia, the Ukraine, Colombia, Ethiopia, and India. This indicates that statistics are
not easy to come by, however, researchers are continuously working on finding new ways to
better collect their data so that results can be more comprehensive and generalizable.
As a method of improving data collection, we need to understand who is adopting.
Today, adoptions are not strictly for those who are unable to bear children. In recent times,
single-parents, cohabitating couples, heterosexual married couples, and since July of 2005, gay
and lesbian couples, are now adopting children from most countries. This has opened the doors
to more opportunities for children to be adopted and for data collection to improve. Programs
have since been created as an aid to foster-care and adoptive families. Additionally, there are
training programs for those interested in emergency-diagnostic foster-care. In Spain, this is for,
“Children who need to be separated from their biological families and whose circumstances were
previously unknown to the child protection professionals” (Palacios & Amorós, 2006, p.927). In
many countries, these children live with an emergency foster-family as their case is being
processed and until a more stable solution can be found. Although adoption and foster-care have
come a long way in many countries, many adjustments will have to be made in the future to
guarantee the best interest of the child (Palacios & Amorós, 2006).
Anyone who follows adoption trends knows that there are an increasing number of families
choosing to adopt internationally. The year 1999 saw a 4% increase in the amount of children
adopted internationally as compared to the previous year; domestic adoptions stayed the same
(Hollingsworth and Ruffin, 2002). The big question is, why? Hollingsworth and Ruffin (2002)
make it clear that the most important task is pinpointing the factors that are driving prospective
adoptive parents to adopt internationally. We will take a look at the costs and benefits associated
with adoption, such as the availability of infants for adoption, waiting periods to adopt, openness

in adoption, expense associated with adopting, race/ethnic similarity between the adoptive
parent(s) and the child, and the child’s medical and developmental status in order to get a better
picture of how these factors come into play in the adoption process.
As stated earlier Hollingsworth and Ruffin (2002) were looking at specific factors
motivating the increasing numbers of international adopters, one of which was the availability of
infants for adoption. Studying adoption trends revealed that there are very few infants available
for adoption within the United States, motivating adopters to look outside of the country. The
authors also found that almost half of the children adopted internationally are under the age of
one. This goes to show that adopters are not just looking to adopt, but rather are looking
specifically for infants. Another important factor was the waiting period to adopt. The authors
found that domestic adoptions typically have a much longer waiting period than do international
adoptions. This gives adopters an incentive to adopt internationally, enabling them to adopt
sooner. The Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 was mentioned which was enacted in the
hopes of promoting the reduction of barriers to adoption. However, due to the low amount of
infants available and the high incidence of developmental disabilities and behavior problems,
there has not been much progress made (Hollingsworth & Ruffin, 2002).
However, adoption does not just impact children, but also families and society. It is
important to be knowledgeable about the topic of adoption and foster-care because it is relevant
in today’s society. Many families within the United States adopt children from other countries.
Additionally, it is good for specialists in the adoption and foster-care areas to be up to date on the
policies that other countries have so that the best policies can be created based off of what seems
to be working and what does not.

Based on past research, specialists believe that more work needs to be done to prepare
families and children (Brodzinsky, 2014; Gunnar, Bruce, & Grotevant, 2000; Hollingsworth,
2003; Logan, 1999; Palacios & Brodzinsky, 2010; Wik et. al, 2011). Because foster-care is
relatively new and adoption is in many countries just now becoming an open topic of discussion,
there is little research on what preparation looks like. This means that there is still much research
to be conducted, creating a great opportunity for many researchers in this field of study. Palacios
and Brodzinsky (2010) suggest that professionals and researchers be in closer association so that
the information gained is of higher quality.
As an example of high quality, Palacios and Brodzinsky (2010) where they highlight the
positive outcomes of adoption and the high resiliency that children are capable of when placed
into a loving and stable home. Most research focuses on the negatives of adoption and foster care
(Brodzinsky & Palacios 2010). However, the main point is to bring to light the advantages of
adoption and foster-care and the importance of continuing to research these topics so that we can
improve the lives of these children and their adoptive families.
Likewise, the research in earlier years showed a more negative outlook on the adoption
and foster-care. For instance, researchers found that adopted children, even those placed as
infants or at a very young age, are at a significant risk for a variety of psychological problems
compared to their non-adopted peers (Palacios & Brodzinsky, 2010, p. 272). Could this be due to
the higher likelihood that adoptive parents will take their children to receive health services?
Research also indicates that adopted children show a great deal more of externalizing behaviors
than did their non-adopted peers, as well as a higher rate of learning problems (Palacios &
Brodzinsky, 2010).

Cross-sectional studies focusing on children who were placed into homes early in life
showed that elementary school-age adopted children were more likely to manifest both
psychological and academic problems (Palacios & Brodzinsky, 2010, p.272). Longitudinal
designs were created and looked at the adjustment patterns of adopted and non-adopted
individuals. These studies showed increased adjustment problems for adoptees compared to non-
adoptees during childhood and early adolescence but little or no differences between these
groups by late adolescence and young adulthood (Palacios & Brodzinsky, 2010, p. 272).
In general, recent studies point to the conclusion that adopted children may have
developmental delays initially, however, after a few years will catch-up to their peers. This is due
to the high resiliency found in adopted children. Palacios and Brodzinsky (2010) make it a point
to reveal the positives of adoption and foster-care and urge researchers to continue collecting
data on these topic areas and to share it with each other so that a collaborative solution can be
made to better the lives of these adopted children and their families.
Adoptive Parents
One way professionals can help families is by providing resources on disclosure. An
important issue in the adoption process is how a parent should or should not tell the child about
his/her adoption. Brodzinsky (2011) takes a further look at this topic and refers to it as a process
rather than an event. He relates the “telling process” to the different stages of children’s
cognitive development, making his research highly influential in the study of adoption.
Research has shown that parents generally begin telling their children about the adoption
during the preschool years. During this time, the children can learn to talk about adoption
without understanding what it really means (Brodzinsky, 2011, p. 201). Brodzinsky (2011)
mentions how parents will sometimes consider the “one-time” discussion as adequate, ceasing to

bring the subject up again. As we will learn from this article, the discussion will need to be
carried out throughout the child’s life in order to develop a full understanding of what adoption
means.
Paralleling closely with Piaget’s stages of cognitive development, Brodzinsky (2011)
highlights the stage following the preschool years, known as middle childhood. This
encompasses children between the ages of 6-12. During this time of development, children view
the process of adoption in a new light. They have the capacity for problem solving, which
enables them to realize that the birthparents may have had options (Brodzinsky, 2011, p.201).
For example, a child may respond with confusion to the adoptive parent because he/she believes
that although his/her biological parents may have been poor, most poor people do not give their
babies away. The child may also begin to understand the significance of biological connections
among family members. This too can raise questions from the child. Lastly, the child is
beginning to process things logically and seeing things from another person’s perspective.
Questions such as, “How many parents do I have?” or “Do you think my mom is looking for
me?” may arise. These are all attempts of the child to piece together the adoption process with
the level of cognitive development that he/she is capable of attaining. However, based on
research, we know that the brain is not yet fully developed so there is still room for further
discussion in the future (Brodzinsky, 2011).
The final stage of cognitive development that Brodzinsky (2011) mentions is
adolescence. Children may now begin understanding the legal permanence associated with
adoption. As in the stage of middle childhood, the children are maturing in their understanding of
other people’s thoughts and feelings. They can now look at adoption from a societal perspective.
This can be positive if the society in which the child has been raised is accepting of adoption;

however, it can also be negative if society looks down upon it. For example, does the media tell
the child that biological families are the best and adoptive families are second-best (Brodzinsky,
2011, p.202)?
Another factor that the author urges adoptive parents to keep in mind is that the loss a
parent or parents of adoptees is unique. These children are being placed into families after having
potentially been in an institution or foster home for an extended period of time. Therefore, the
child may be dealing with a break in attachment with caregivers while at the same time
readjusting to living in a new home. Parents should keep this in mind when handling the
adjustment of the adopted child. Additionally, the loss of a parent/parents, once realized, can be
traumatic. It is different than other types of loss such as death because there is the possibility that
one or both parents are still living. This is another issue that may arise in which the adoptive
parents will need to handle when the time comes.
The conclusion is that it is best to start the process of talking about adoption early on
(Brodzinsky, 2011). This will enable the child to become comfortable with the topic and make
later discussions easier. Parents should also keep in mind the different stages of cognitive
development in order to respond appropriately to questions asked by the child. Last, parents
should acknowledge that the child may go through a grieving process when processing the loss
that has occurred whether it is of the former caregiver(s) or the parent(s). They should make
themselves available to the child as he/she copes with this loss and grief. Each of these steps will
help to create the most positive outcomes during the discussion process (Brodzinsky, 2011).
The findings can impact individuals, families, and society by informing them of the
different stages of cognitive development so that they can better understand where the child is
coming from. For example, if the child asks certain questions, the person will know how the

child is processing the information and will better understand if it is normative. This will also
help in resolving these issues by helping the person to talk things through appropriately with the
child. These findings will impact future research by encouraging a further look at children’s
cognitive development in association with positive and negative outcomes in the process of
informing the child about the adoption (Brodzinsky, 2011).
Hollingsworth and Ruffin (2002) discuss the opportunity for a confidential adoption
being a potential factor in the adoption process. Research tells us that open adoption is more
common with domestic adoption, making it more appealing for some parents to adopt
internationally. This is because some adopters consider open adoption a risk and closed
adoptions more of a benefit, avoiding the potential of having the child taken away from them by
the biological parent. A major factor that has played a role from the beginning of adoption is
race. More so in the past, adoptive parents were choosing to adopt from eastern European
countries (Hollingsworth & Ruffin, 2002). Could this be due to the fact that they closely
resemble the white race found within United States?
Related to race, is resources. When we consider adoption related expenses, we open a whole
new set of potential issues. For instance, research tells us that private adoptions are more
expensive than public ones. Which is better? Is one worth more than the other when considering
costs versus benefits? Lastly, Hollingsworth and Ruffin (2002) discuss the factor of children’s
health status. One “cost” for adoptive parents could be the fact that children adopted
internationally tend to have more developmental, physical, and mental health problems than do
children adopted domestically. Why? Could we provide incentives for adopting internationally
such as help with medical bills or counseling?

In addition to the factors mentioned earlier, Hollingsworth and Ruffin (2002) point out that
there could be a link between adoption, power relations, and social context. Are parents from
undeveloped countries targeted, being taken advantage of by the United States? Are there
policies created within The Hague Convention and United Nations Convention on the Rights of
the Child that advocate or prevent adoption from certain places? All of these factors could also
be playing a role in the process of adoption.
Hollingsworth and Ruffin (2002) concluded that “increases in international adoptions
could be explained from a social exchange perspective” (p. 95). This means that there are costs
and benefits associated with adopting internationally and based on research, there seem to be a
higher number of benefits than costs. Hollingsworth and Ruffin (2002) urge us to keep in mind
that social context and power relations could also play a major role in international adoption. All
in all, they believe that more research is needed in the future in order to get a clearer picture of
the international adoption process and its’ potential directions.
These findings impact individuals, families, and society by informing everyone about the
factors that come into play when adopting, potentially helping prospective adoptive parents
decide what the best route for them to take is. This research could also help to educate social
workers so that they can help children and families to the best of their abilities and better
understand the pre-adoptive environment in relation to institutionalized children.
Children
The correlation between institutionalization of children, developmental delays, and
behavioral issues have been researched and talked about for years. Some researchers argue that
developmental delays and behavioral problems will follow a child throughout his/her lifetime
while others firmly believe in the remarkable resiliency of the child. While these issues are

important to keep in mind, other researchers are going further by discussing and evaluating ways
to prevent or lessen the effects of institutionalization on children. In addition to this,
Hollingsworth (2003), Gunnar, Bruce and Grotevant (2000), and Wiik et. al (2011) point out
specific issues such as the genetics, resiliency, and social justice that play a role in the
adjustment of adopted children. To address this, it is important to understand the pre-adoptive
environment in relation to institutionalized children.
Pre-adoption Environment
Pre-adoption functioning and post-adoption adjustment are two topics frequently studied
in the field of adoption. We hear all the time of how a child adopted into a family will have
adjustment problems. The next step taken by the adoptive parents is typically seeking assistance
from professionals in order to learn appropriate ways of responding, or, in the worst cases, send
the child back. A unique aspect of Goldman and Ryan (2010) is that they look at certain risk
factors to see if they influence pre-adoption functioning and/or post-adoption adjustment. We
will discuss more in detail in the following paragraphs.
There are a number of studies that have been conducted that look at the negative effects
of risk factors such as drugs and alcohol on fetuses. There are also a number of studies that look
at the post-adoption adjustment issues that adoptive families deal with. Overall, most research
articles will tell the reader that if a child is exposed to risk factors at an early age, then he/she
will cope with them for the rest of his/her life. However, Goldman and Ryan (2010) say
otherwise.
Longitudinal studies were conducted by mailing surveys to adoptive families with
adopted children ages 6-17. The children, on average, had been living with their adoptive
families for 8 years. There were two “waves” of surveys. The first wave was completed between

October to December of 2002, and the second wave was done during the same time the
following year. Researchers Goldman and Ryan (2010) were looking to find if prenatal ATOD
(alcohol, tobacco, and other drug) exposure, sex of the adopted child, child’s experience of
sexual abuse, and/or the number of placements experienced by the child influenced pre-adoption
functioning and post-adoption adjustment
Goldman and Ryan (2010) found that neither of the two prenatal risk factors (ATOD and
sex of the child) acted as an individual moderator of the relationship between pre-adoption
functioning and post-adoption adjustment. They also found that sexual abuse was the only
individual risk factor that approached statistical significance in their study (Goldman & Ryan,
2010, p. 297). Additionally, they found that although prenatal ATOD exposure did significantly
influence pre-adoption functioning, it did not influence post-adoption adjustment. Lastly, they
stated that none of the risk factors alone were strong enough to significantly influence a child’s
adjustment (Goldman & Ryan, 2010, p. 298). Based on the results, Goldman and Ryan (2010)
concluded that adopted children exposed to prenatal ATOD and other risk factors were most
often associated with successful outcomes.
Likewise, in spite of the many negatives that researchers tend to find associated with
institutionalization of children, a good number of other researchers acknowledge the high
resiliency rate of these children once adopted into a stable and supportive family. Gunnar et. al
(2000) notes the remarkable plasticity of the brain and the resiliency in language development.
Resiliency, as well as social justice and genetic factors, can be positively influenced if the right
steps are taken to incorporate these into pre- and post-adoption services (Gunnar et. al, 2000).
These findings impact not only individuals, but also families and society in that they
provide evidence to support the adoption of children regardless of their prenatal and pre-adoption

exposure. So often prospective adoptive parents are cautious when choosing a child to adopt so
as to not create too much of a job for themselves in regards to raising the child. Furthermore,
these findings have the potential to attract more prospective adoptive families and supporters.
Due to the negative light that was shed on adoption and foster-care for years, many people have
turned away from the idea, seeing it as a bad option. However, the evidence from this study
shows that the children are intensely resilient; giving adoptive parents more incentive to adopt
regardless of pre-adoption factors. Lastly, Goldman and Ryan (2010) suggest the need for a
greater understanding of the risk factors and the development of prevention efforts. To provide
this, it is important to understand the role adoptive parents play in children’s experiences with
adoption.
Implications for Practice
Hollingsworth (2003), Gunnar, Bruce, and Grotevant (2000), Wiik et. al (2011), Juffer,
Bakermans-Kranenburg, and van IJzendoorn (2005), Bakermans-Kranenburg, van Ijzendoorn,
and Juffer (2003), and Wiley and Baden (2005) emphasize the need for pre-and post-adoption
services. For example, social workers should, “become competent in assisting intercountry
adoptive families through decision making, pre-placement services, and post-adoption education
or counseling and provide resources, support, education, and counseling to adopted children and
family members” (Hollingsworth, 2003, p. 216). Gunnar et. al (2000) mentions the need for
policies that would promote or require pre-adoption and post adoption services such as making
sure that families can care for the child or “increasing the number of clinics within the US that
specialize in assessing internationally adopted children” (pp. 685-687) in the hopes of positively
impacting the children’s ability to recover from early privation. Wiik et. al (2011) agrees that
there is a lack of pre-adoption and post-adoption services and suggests that “enhancing

opportunities for such training is warranted and might help avoid publicized, yet thankfully rare,
instances of parenting failure associated with international adoption” (p. 60).
A study was done on Romanian children who were deprived in institutions, showing the
catch-up to “normal” development once the children were adopted. Likewise, meta-analytic
studies have been conducted which also point to the high rate of catch-up that adopted children
have in all areas when compared with their peers left behind in institutions (Palacios &
Brodzinsky, 2010, p. 275). Training parents to be able to care for these children coming from
risky environments would help to increase the likelihood of successful catch-up rates.
Other studies have already looked at the outcomes of such preventative interventions.
For example, the study conducted by Juffer, Bakermans-Kranenburg, and van IJzendoorn in
2005 concluded that “disorganization in infants can be changed through parenting interventions”
(p.272). Based on their research findings, they suggested “interventions that teach parents to
follow their child’s lead, or to observe their child on videotape” (Juffer, Bakermans-Kranenburg,
& van IJzendoorn, 2005, p.272) be implemented. A study done by the same group concluded that
“interventions with an exclusively behavioral focus on maternal sensitivity appear to be most
effective not only in enhancing maternal sensitivity but also in promoting children’s attachment
security” (Bakermans-Kranenburg, van IJzendoorn, & Juffer, 2003, p.212). Research reveals the
need for preventative interventions in the field of adoption. Much has been done to start the
process, such as the interventions mentioned above, however much is still to be done. One thing
is clear, and it is that each of these researchers notes the importance of advancement in pre- and
postadoption services in order to strengthen future adoptions.
An additional issue Wiik et. al (2011) brings to light is the genetic influence on an
institutionalized child’s behavior. For example, research has shown us that certain “risk genes”

put some children at a greater risk for developing attention problems. Genes can make a child
prone to act differently when placed in certain environments (Wiik et. al, 2011). “Children
relinquished for adoption might carry a higher genetic risk for various forms of maladaptive
behavior than children not given up for adoption” (Juffer, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & van
IJzendoorn, 2005, p.271). Therefore, some children may be prone to certain behavior disorders,
such as ADHD. If, however, placed in a stable and supportive environment, the children will not
develop the disorder. “Furthermore, biological vulnerabilities in the child may also predispose
for attachment disorganization” (Juffer, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & van IJzendoorn, 2005,
p.264). This brings the importance of pre- and post-adoption services to the surface. If a
behavioral or attachment issue could be prevented by simply preparing adoptive parents for what
is to come and equipping institution workers with the right skills to care for the children, this
would be a remarkable advancement in the field of adoption.
Although genetics can play a role in the attachment of children, researchers question
whether interventions such as those involving sensitivity could influence attachment. Juffer,
Bakermans-Kranenburg, and van IJzendoorn (2005) conducted a study that looked at
disorganized attachment and mother’s sensitivity. One group was given no intervention, one
group was given a personal book, and the last group was given a personal book in addition to
three home- based sessions of video feedback. At the end of the study, researchers concluded
that all interventions were helpful in reducing the number of children with disorganized
attachments however interventions that included both the personal book and video feedback were
most effective. This study showed a correlation between mother’s sensitivity and child’s
attachment (Juffer, Bakermans-Kranenburg, & van IJzendoorn, 2005, p. 270).

A similar study conducted by Bakermans-Kranenburg, van IJzendoorn, and Juffer (2003)
looked at the effects of maternal sensitivity on attachment. Eighty-eight studies were analyzed,
involving families with and without multivariate risks (i.e., low SES, multiproblem or clinically
referred sample, adolescent mothers). The studies ranged from short-term sensitivity focused
interventions (fewer than five sessions), short-term sensitivity, support, and representation
focused, long-term sensitivity focused (sixteen or more sessions), to long-term sensitivity,
support, and representation focused interventions. Results showed that regardless of multivariate
risks, “interventions with a clear focus and a modest number of sessions are preferable”
(Kranenburg, van IJzendoorn, and Juffer, 2003, p. 212). Furthermore, as stated earlier,
“interventions with an exclusively behavioral focus on maternal sensitivity appear to be most
effective not only in enhancing sensitivity but also in promoting children’s attachment security”
(Kranenburg, van IJzendoorn, and Juffer, 2003, p. 212). This could be an open door for those
looking to start interventions for adoptive families. Why, might one ask? Based on these results,
programs could be created that would allow all children, regardless of their background history,
to come and receive the same treatment program, resulting in the same positive effects. This is
groundbreaking in the field of adoption.
Studies such as Wiley and Baden (2004) also provide novel information to researchers.
They conducted a number of in- depth interviews of birth mothers discussing their feelings both
pre- and post-relinquishment of their child. Researchers found that “birth mothers detail ongoing
symptoms of grief, isolation, and difficulty setting aside the experience of relinquishment”
(Wiley & Baden, 2004, p. 29). One point that Wiley & Baden (2004) make in regards to
reducing the amount of grief that these mothers experience is that “birth mothers who had
ongoing contact with the adoptive family through either ongoing mediated or fully disclosed

adoptions showed better resolution of grief than birth mothers whose contact had ceased” (Wiley
& Baden, 2004, p. 40). This statement supports the need for open adoptions. The study includes
a series of case studies describing mothers in very different circumstances such as forced vs.
voluntary adoption, low vs. high SES, race, and age.
Hollingsworth (2003) mentions the issue of social justice. For example, exploitation of
family poverty, right to knowledge of and access to birth family, and risk to child’s right to
cultural and ethnic identification. Hollingsworth (2003) references the United Nations
Convention and the Hague Conference when looking for solutions to these issues. For instance,
when dealing with family poverty, these policies stress that a child should remain with biological
families and when not possible, be placed up for adoption. This is so as to not take advantage of
the families in poverty. As for the knowledge of roots, both policies promote open adoptions.
These policies also voice the importance of respect for the child’s identity and the ability of an
adoptive parent to undertake the child’s identity development. This is so that the child can
develop a positive image of him/herself. These solutions could potentially be introduced in pre-
and post-adoption services for adoptive parents (Hollingsworth, 2003).
One of the main points Wiley and Baden (2004) make is that not only is there a need for
pre- and post-adoption services for the biological mothers, but that these services should be
sensitive to the different needs of each mother. Not every therapy or service should look the
same because each mother has different needs that specialists should tailor to her. Overall, this
study points out that there is an importance placed on pre- and post-adoption services for
children and adoptive parents. However, biological parents are often excluded from this adoptive
triad. Therefore, more research needs to be done on the biological parents and services need to be

created in order to assist them in their coping processes, just as they are created for the children
and adoptive parents (Wiley & Baden, 2004).
Logan (2012) conducted a study in which biological mothers, along with adoptive
parents, were encouraged to exchange information in the hopes of creating a successful open
adoption. The results showed that most “common was a one-way exchange from adoptive
parents to birth parents (via the agency)” (p.29). Many of the reasons given from biological
mothers for not exchanging information were that it was too difficult emotionally for them. It
was a “mixed blessing.” On one hand, the mothers could explain themselves when they
exchanged information, helping them to let go and move on (p.33). On the other hand, it was a
very difficult process internally. Although no one definite service was established that benefited
all the participants in the study, Logan (2012) suggested that “the nature and extent of
communication should not be prescribed by the agency but should be flexible and tailored to
meet the needs of the individuals involved” (p.35).
All in all, each of these articles highlights the importance of a need for pre- and post-
adoption services. It is clear that services should be created for not only the children, but also the
adoptive and biological parents. Providing parents and adoption workers with the right skills to
successfully care for a child will benefit individuals, families, and society over time.
Conclusion
The research has shown that adoption and foster-care have been developing globally over
the past few decades. Trends have come and gone, such as where families are adopting from,
who can adopt, and whether adoptions are opened or closed. One specific issue that
Hollingsworth and Ruffin (2002) discussed was the specific factors motivating the increasing
numbers of international adopters. Their findings, such that there are more infants available

outside of the United States and a decreased waiting time, contribute to the trend of where
families are adopting from. Last, we discussed how researchers such as Brodzinsky (2014),
Gunnar, Bruce, and Grotevant (2000), Hollingsworth (2003), Logan (1999), Palacios and
Brodzinsky (2010), and Wiik et. al (2011) are placing an importance on the need for services for
the adoption triad. This would be beneficial for the children, adoptive families, and biological
parents.
One way in which adoptive parents could benefit from receiving services from
professionals would be by learning the appropriate ways in which to explain the adoption process
to their child. Brodzinsky (2011) used Piaget’s stages of development to explain the appropriate
steps and times to explain the adoption process. We took another look at the reasons for a greater
number of international adoptions using a cost-benefit model from the perspective of the
adoptive parents. Hollingsworth and Ruffin (2002) concluded that more research still needs to be
done in order to get a clearer picture of the international adoption process and its’ potential
directions.
The children being adopted, whether internationally or domestically, are prone to
adjustment problems. This is due to pre- and post-adoption environments. Most researchers
believe in a high resiliency of these children if they are placed in a loving, supportive, and stable
environment. We looked at the study conducted by Goldman and Ryan (2010) which concluded
that prenatal and pre-adoption risk factors may influence pre-adoption functioning, however did
not influence post-adoption adjustment. Gunnar et. al (2000) noted the resiliency of
institutionalized children. These findings provide evidence to support the adoption of children
regardless of their prenatal and pre-adoption exposure.

The closing topic is researchers’ push for a need for pre- and post-adoption services.
Gunnar et. al (2000) mentions the need for policies that would promote or require pre-adoption
and post-adoption services. Wiik et. al (2011) states that there is a lack of pre-adoption and post-
adoption services and suggest that “enhancing opportunities for such training is warranted and
might help avoid publicized, yet thankfully rare, instances of parenting failure associated with
international adoption” (p.60). The same could be said about domestic adoptions. It is important
to keep in mind that researchers strongly support the need for services for not only adoptive
parents, but also for children and biological parents.
Discussion
Establishing pre- and post-adoption services for the adoption triad is suggested for future
practice. These services should be specific to each family and its’ members. Services should be
encouraged for all adoptive families. They should be determined based on the present need of the
individuals. For example, if a biological mother is seeking adoption services that encourage her
to take steps towards working through her emotions by writing a letter to her child, such as in the
study conducted by Logan (2012), the professionals should encourage her to do so when she is
ready. If a mother has recently relinquished her child, she would probably wait a few months to
start this technique. On the other hand, mothers who have been separated from their child for a
longer period of time should begin the service earlier on. Other services such as this should be
created and tailored to each child and parent in order to provide the most successful outcomes
possible (Logan, 2012).
References

Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Van Ijzendoorn, M. H., & Juffer, F. (2003). Less is more: Meta-
analysis of sensitivity and attachment interventions in early childhood. Psychological
Bulletin, 129, 195–215. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.2.195
Brodzinsky, D. M. (2011). Children's understanding of adoption: Developmental and clinical
implications. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 42(2), 200-207.
doi:10.1037/a0022415
Goldman, G., & Ryan, S. D. (2011). Direct and modifying influences of selected risk factors on
children's pre-adoption functioning and post-adoption adjustment. Children & Youth
Services Review, 33(2), 291-300. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.09.012
Gunnar MR, Bruce J, Grotevant H.D. (2000). International adoption of institutionally reared
children:Research and policy. Development and Psychopathology, 12, 677–693.
Hollingsworth, L. (2003). International adoption among families in the United States:
Considerations of social justice. Social Work, 48(2), 209-217
Hollingsworth, L., & Ruffin, V. (2002). Why are so many U.S. families adopting
Internationally? A Social Exchange Perspective. Journal of Human Behavior in The
Social Environment, 6(1), 81.
Juffer, F., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., & Van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2005). The importance of
parenting in the development of disorganized attachment: Evidence from a preventive
intervention study in adoptive families. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46,
263-274. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00353.x
Logan, J. (1999). Exchanging information post adoption. Adoption and Fostering, 23(3), 27–37.
doi: 10.1177/030857599902300305

Palacios, J., & Amoros, P. (2006). Recent changes in adoption and fostering in spain. The British
Journal of Social Work,36(6), 921-935. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bch363
Palacios J, Brodzinsky D. (2010). Adoption Research: trends, topics, outcomes. International
Journal of Behavior Development , 34, 270–284. doi: 10.1177/0165025410362837
Selman P. (2009). The rise and fall of Intercountry adoption in the 21st century. International
Social Work,52, 575-594. doi: 10.1177/0020872809337681
Wiik, K. L., Loman, M. M., Van Ryzin, M. J., Armstrong, J. M., Essex, M. J., Pollak, S. D., et
al. (2011). Behavioral and emotional symptoms of postinstitutionalized children in
middle childhood. Journal of Child Psychiatry and Psychology, 52, 56–63.
doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02294.x
Wiley M. O. & Baden A. L. (2005). Birth parents in adoption: Research, practice, and counseling
psychology. Counseling Psychologist, 33, 13-50. DOI: 10.1177/0011000004265961
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2007). Foster Care. Retrieved from
https://www.childwelfare.gov/outofhome/foster_care/.
U.S. Department of State. (2013). What is Intercountry Adoption. Retrieved from
http://adoption.state.gov/adoption_process/what.php.

Adoption Trends and Processes- Domestic and Abroad

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (19)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (16)

Ähnlich wie Adoption Trends and Processes- Domestic and Abroad

Ähnlich wie Adoption Trends and Processes- Domestic and Abroad (20)

Adoption Trends and Processes- Domestic and Abroad