Category: Adoption

The Constitution of the United States is one of the most important documents in the country’s history to this day​.​ The document was to have a structure for America to be run on​.​ A bunch of the ideas that are in the Constitution were inspired by Enlightened philosophers​.​ Some of these philosophers that many know of are Charles De Montesquieu, Voltaire, and Cesare Bonesana Beccaria, the list goes on​…​ The relationship between the Enlightened philosophers and the United States Constitution is that the Enlightenment is all over the Constitution​.​ For example, Charles De Montesquieu believed in the separation of power with checks and balances​.​ Checks and balances are put in place to ensure that no one branch of government has too much power​.​ This is very well known and still used in today’s government​,​ it gives the people a sense of mind that the power is not given to just one person​,​ in America’s case that would be our president​,​ it makes sure the power is being distributed​.​ He always prompted the inclusion of separation of powers​.​ Separation of powers divides the government into three independent branches which are accountable to each other​.​ It is to prevent the concentration of power and provide for checks and balances​,​ which is still very important to America​.​ Another Enlightened philosopher who influenced the U​.​S constitution is Voltaire also known as (Francois Marie Arouet)​, ​Voltaire believed in religious freedom which is practiced in the US today​.​ He was also an advocate for freedom of speech which everyone knows the freedom of religion and speech is a key part of the First Amendment of the U.S Constitution​.​ Speaking of the amendments, the last philosopher I am talking about influenced the 5th​,​ 6th, and 8th Amendments of the United States Constitution.​ This philosopher is Cesare Bonesana Beccari, he argued in favor of fair trials and against the use of torture, this comes in the form of the 5th​,​ 6th, and 8th Amendments​.​

The 5th amendment is ‘No person shall be held to answer for a capital​,​ or otherwise infamous crime​, ​unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury” This is an example of Beccari’s fair trial because if the people being accused of a crime didn’t have someone present for them​,​ the prosecutor or police officer could lie and affect the accused person freedom​.​ The 6th Amendment is the same thing that allows a person to have a fair trial and this is where the saying “innocence until proven guilty comes in”​.​ The 8th Amendment makes sure no cruel or unusual punishment happens to people and that’s where Beccari’s argument against the use of torture comes into play with the U.S Constitution​.​ As you can see the enlightened philosopher made a big impact on making the United States Constitution, many things that they preached and argued for were and still are in the Constitution that we still use today.

The first ten amendments to the Constitution are extremely essential to the democracy we have today. I believe the most essential amendment to democracy is the First Amendment. The First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

This means that the government cannot make a law or take away the basic right to freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly, and petition. The reason I feel that the First Amendment is essential to democracy is that, in a democracy, you give the people the power to elect their representatives. The reason that democracy works in the United States is that if the representatives that the citizens have elected try to take away their rights granted to them in the First Amendment, the citizens then have the power to elect someone new. This is where freedom of speech and press comes in because now the citizens can speak up and voice their opinions when they disagree with something. They can also voice their opinions in peaceful protests like we have seen with the two previous presidential elections. If the First Amendment did not exist, this would be similar to living in Russia under President Putin, the people of Russia are not allowed to voice their opinions, and if they do they are thrown in jail, or worse. As human beings, we all have different beliefs, religions, and opinions. We should have the right to express what we think should be done. This is why the First Amendment is essential to democracy, it gives the people the freedom to follow their conscience and express their views; without these fundamental freedoms, they would never be able to enact the changes they want to see in society.

The development and reform of laws relating to same-sex relationships have effectively reflected societal values. The reform of the Adoption Act 2000 to the Adoption Amendment

Act (Same Sex Couples) Act 2010 reflected societal values to a degree but lacked responsiveness and struggled to balance religious tensions. The reform of the Marriage Act (1961) to the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017 effectively reflected societal values, however, it also struggled to balance religious tensions.

The laws relating to same-sex parents and their children have developed over time to reflect society and its values to an extent, however, there was great ‘law lag’ and the legislation struggled to balance tensions between societal groups. The Adoption Act 2000 was reformed in 2010 and the Adoption Amendment Act (Same Sex Couples) Act 2010 was passed. Previous to the reform, under the Adoption Act 2000, the nonbiological parent of a same-sex couple could not adopt their partner’s biological child, and only married heterosexual couples could adopt a child. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics ‘Between 1996 and 2011, the number of same-sex couples more than tripled.’ Within the same period, the acceptance of same-sex couples in Australia rapidly increased. There were clear changes in the social values of the Australian population that agitated for reform of the Adoption Act 2000. The NSW Law Reform Commission undertook a review of the Adoption of Children Act 1965 and subsequently recommended an amendment enabling adoption by same-sex couples. However, the amendment was not included in the Adoption Act 2000. Furthermore, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC), an international treaty ratified by Australia, was a strong mechanism for the reform. Section 7(f) of the Adoption Act 2000 states ‘adoption law and practice complies with Australia’s obligations under treaties and other international agreements’. However, ‘parent’ is never defined in the CROC, and it is accepted that there is no reason to assume it is limited to one’s sexuality, as specific wording such as ‘heterosexual’ is never included. The Adoption Act 2000 does not comply with the CROC’s key principles. As stated by the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, “the Adoption Act in its present form arbitrarily discriminates against same-sex couples purely based on their sexuality, rather than their ability to provide a stable and loving home for a child.” Through the effective work of agencies such as the Law Reform Commission and reports surrounding the CROC, the evident flaws in the legislation were recognized and the Adoption Amendment Act (Same Sex Couples) Act 2010 was passed.

However, after the passing of the act, there was community backlash and evident tension between religious groups and the requirements of the legislation. By including adoption rights in the anti-discrimination laws, Christian adoption agencies had to legally comply with the legislation by working with same-sex couples. Many felt this went against the religion and felt an amendment was necessary. Penny Sharpe, a parliamentary secretary, stated in a blog post that there were ‘hundreds of emails, letters and phone calls for and against the bill’. Jim Wallace, managing director of the Australian Christian Lobby Group stated in the Sydney Morning Herald (2010) “The New South Wales Government is not putting the interests of the child first. How can giving children to very demanding gay rights activists for a moment be in the child’s best interest? By nature, it is a man and a woman who can give birth to a child. That is the natural family.” Wallace’s statements represent many, with adoption agencies such as Anglicare that argued they would stop providing adoption services if they had to assist homosexual couples. This backlash triggered a further amendment to be made to the Adoption Amendment Act (Same Sex Couples) Act 2010 in which adoption agencies can choose to not work with homosexual couples and each case can make preferences relating to sexuality. Overall, the reform of the Adoption Act 2000 failed to reflect the values and attitudes of society at first. However, later amendments to satisfy community standards of religious groups have increased the level of success in reflecting society.

The reform of the Marriage Act (1961) to the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017 was successful in reflecting societal values, however, there was some community backlash despite the reform’s aim to ease tensions. Australia’s changing social values and recognition of the discriminatory nature of the Marriage Act (1961), were the driving forces for this reform. In 2015, 66% of Australians supported same-sex marriage (Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2018). Agencies such as the Australian Human Rights Commission released reports demonstrating the need for reform based on the breach of individual rights. In the AHRC 2015 report, ‘The Australian Human Rights Commission considers that the fundamental human rights principle of equality means that civil marriage should be available, to all couples, regardless of sex, sexual orientation or gender identity.’ International law agitated for reform, as the requirements of the Marriage Act (1961) breached the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), a treaty Australia ratified in 1980. Article 2 of the ICCPR requires ‘state parties to ensure all individuals are to enjoy the rights set out in the ICCPR without discrimination’, with the right to marry being included. The combination of these legal and nonlegal mechanisms effectively placed pressure on the Abbott government to promise a plebiscite on the issue of same-sex marriage. In 2017, a postal survey was issued to determine if the Australian public supported the question ‘Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?’. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2017), 61.6% voted yes and 38.4% voted no. The media and society were responsible for agitating the social change, with ‘Over 1 million calls made by Australians in an attempt to convince others to vote yes and support same-sex marriage’, (2017, Marriage Equality Australia). The results led to the passing of the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017, in which same-sex couples held the right to not be discriminated against or denied the right to marriage. This reform was driven by the changing values of society and therefore effectively reflects society.

Opposing this, the reform and passing of the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017 saw community backlash from religious groups despite the act’s efforts to balance these tensions. The legislation allows a religious celebrant to choose to marry people in line with their religious beliefs. In the lead-up to the postal vote, Tony Abbott stated “If you’re worried about religious freedom and freedom of speech, vote no’ (SMH, 2017). Furthermore, the Australian Christian Lobby released its ‘No’ campaign, advocating that law reform enabling same-sex marriage will result in forced sex and gender education programs. These community concerns about protecting religious freedom triggered a large community outcry against the reform through the media. An ABC article (2018) included the following; ‘Senator Bernardi claimed same-sex marriage was a ‘radical gay sex agenda’ which threatened children. Additionally, Bronwyn Bishop compared same-sex marriage to bestiality and killing infants.’ The efforts of the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Act 2017 still failed to balance the ongoing tension between same-sex equality and religious beliefs. However, factors such as the results of the postal vote are evidence of the reform following the views of the majority. Therefore, the reform effectively represented societal values.

The development and reform of laws relating to same-sex couples have been moderately effective in reflecting society. The law reform that allowed same-sex couples to adopt was unresponsive and struggled to balance tensions, however, reflected society and its changing values. The law reform that enabled same-sex couples with the right to marriage was driven by society and their values, therefore it was very effective in representing society despite the backlash from religious groups.  

Abstract

With the evolution of predominant values and mainstream culture, the definition of ‘family’ is constantly changing in the United States. Due to social transformations brought by the decline in heterosexual marriage and the growth of working females, the nuclear family, the family formed by heterosexual parents with their biological child or children, lost its dominant status in family forms. Moreover, the chosen family, which covers a wide range, from the adoptive family to same-sex parents with their surrogate children, expands remarkably in the recent years, forcing the public to reconsider the diversity of family forms. However, when LGBTQ couples try to form a family, they may have to confront a number of discriminations and inequalities that married heterosexual couples will not face. This paper aims to explore how LGBTQ couples are shaped within and against legislation, social structures, and conventional moral values, by focusing on pathways to parenthood and challenges they have to face.

What is a family?

When America was founded, a family referred to a huge group which consisted of all the relatives who live nearby or all the members in one household. A few decades later, the nuclear family, which referred to a different-sex couple with their biological child or children, became the dominant family form in the United States. Fast forward to the present day, American families are increasingly diverse, by defying categorization. Due to advanced technology, there are abundant nontraditional ways such as adoption, foster care, surrogacy, and donor insemination for people, in particular, LGBTQ people (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or queer), to gain parenthood and form a family.

Nowadays, approximately 4.3% of adults identify themselves as LGBTQ. Like other parents, LGBTQ parents can also be married, divorced and cohabitating. Recent data prove that gays and lesbian cohabiters as stable as heterosexual cohabiters. Notably, LGBTQ marriages break up at half the rate of heterosexual marriages (Gates 2015). They also want to have a child or children. Although the family seems not to depend on consanguinity or marital relation, LGBTQ people can hardly shrug off pressures caused by legal hurdles and social stigma when they want to form a family. In addition, bioethics such as reproductive justice is also a society’s constraint arm toward LGBTQ people. This paper aims to find out inequalities in family creations, in order to fully understand the reasons why it is so hard for LGBTQ people to form a family and to explore the depth behind the term ‘family’.

PATHWAYS TO PARENTHOOD

Stereotypes and bias

First of all, “how the sexual orientation of parents matters children’s gender identity and sexual development” is one of the most frequently mentioned questions when people discuss whether LGBTQ couples can have a child or not. Many people tend to believe that children who are raised by LGBTQ parents are more likely to be LGBTQ themselves. In 2004, The American College of Pediatricians (ACP) adopted the following statement:

‘…This research has revealed that children reared in homosexual households are more likely to experience sexual confusion, engage in risky sexual experimentation, and later adopt a homosexual identity… Based on the average found in the following nine studies, 14% of children raised by homosexual parents develop homosexual or bisexual preferences’ (Nestor 2004).

It’s seemingly reasonable because most parents have the most primary influences on their children. Although the American Psychological Association (APA) also posted an official declaration to illustrate that no scientific basis could conclude that children’s sexual orientation was influenced by parental sexual orientation (Patterson 2006), suggestive statements like the above one made by ACP have misled a large number of people to believe that same-sex parents are rearing disproportionate numbers of homosexual children.

On the other hand, many people believe that parental ability is relevant to parents’ sexual orientation. Just like what Functionalists believe, male and female should perform different roles in order to help society function well. The female role is traditionally assigned “the mother” who is nurturing enough to take good care of children. By comparison, the male stereotypic role is to be a career-focused, competitive and brave “father”. In this case, some critics say that the absent role of father or mother will cause some negative influences on children growing up in a home with same-sex parents. However, parenthood is not a gendered experience. As a matter of fact, there is no specific division of doing housework in LGBTQ families. Lesbians tend to share household labor equally while gay men are more likely to specialize housework labor (Stacey and Biblarz 2001). No matter how they divide household labor, the main purpose of division of household labor is to ensure a stable and lasting home life for themselves, and their child or children. Furthermore, many sociology researchers have proved that sexual orientation cannot influence on person’s capacity to be a good parent. According to the announcement made by The American Academy of Pediatrics, ‘not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents” (Friday, 2002). In another words, parents’ sexual orientation has nothing influential on emotional attachment and empirical support which children can get from their family.

The American Academy of Pediatrics has confirmed that the major standards for being a good parent should be time spent with their child or children, family stability, personal economic condition, and so on. According to Invisible Inequality: Social Class and Childrearing in Black Families and White Families written by Annette Lareau, one of the most determining influence on child rearing is social resource that parents are able to provide for their child or children. The term social resource here is not simply as income or wealth, but the total distribution of human capital like skills and work experience, cultural capital like familiarity with a certain social environment, social capital like social network connection, and regular money. Lareau began her study based on interviews and observations of 12 white and black families out of 88 children at the age of 8 to 10, in different social class. Each interview was conducted in 1989 – 1990, and all lasted over an hour and a half. As a result of the study, the class position has great influences on critical aspects of family life: organization of daily life, cultural logic, language use, and kin ties (Lareau 2002). Specifically, middle- or upper-class parents generally can offer more these above capital to their child or children than people in working class or people in poor areas. In this case, Lareau concluded that social class has much more influences on child development than race dose (2002). Since insufficient social resources brought by poverty and lower social class can be seen as one of the biggest dangers to children, there is also a possibility for children raising by heterosexual parents to live in a bad living condition without enough emotional attachment and social resources. Thus, people cannot simply backout the right for LGBTQ people to become parents by denying the possibility of them to be a good parent.

“One True Family” Myth and Social Stigma

Undoubtedly, all cultures and societies emphasize the importance of kinship, that is, the relationship which is determined by consanguinity and marital relation. Joshua Gamson, the author of In Modern Families: Stories of Extraordinary Journeys to Kinship, uses six distinct stories of unconventional family creations, such as in vitro fertilization and multi-parent family, to demonstrate how self-determination challenges models of kinship and question the ideology of biological supremacy. Gamson criticizes the “One True Family” myth which states that the only true family structure should contain heterosexual parents and their biological child or children; moreover, Gamson consider ‘One True Family’ myth a way ‘serves to justify the denial of equal respect, support, rights, and resources for all kinds of families'(2015). However, unfortunately, a large number of people hold this myth and regard people treated like family members who are not real biological relatives as “fictive kin”. In this case, ‘One True Family’ myth imperceptibly delays the recognition of new models of kinship and the process of creating a well-established legal system for not only LGBTQ people, but also the heterosexuality.

Additionally, in 1995, Karen March, a professor in the department of sociology and anthropology at Carleton University, made an open-ended interview questionnaire on reunion outcome. After analyzing the feedbacks from sixty reunited adult adoptees, Karen March stated that there was a quite strong and obvious relationship between the social stigma of adoption and motivation for search and reunion. Basically, over half of the respondents reported that they could hardly not to doubt their rightful position within the adoptive family structure. That is to say, they could not regard themselves as a ‘real’ family member, due to the lack of biological kinship ties. Most adoptees believed that they would be more socially acceptable when they reunited with their biological family (March 1995). Respondents’ idea can be explained by Goffman’s concept of social stigma, that is, a type of social discriminations against particular individuals with abnormal social traits or unique physical features (1963). In order to have social acceptance and gain self-identification, these people have to find ways to manage their abnormal social traits and reduce its disruption of others’ sensibilities. Both adoptive family and LGBTQ can be viewed as a rare social trait; moreover, in most cases, rare refers to deviant or abnormal. Thus, respondents wanted to use reunion as a way to neutralize their social stigma. Searching for the reunion is the result of the dual function of social stigma of adoption and that of LGBTQ people, abundant people tend to “selectively” believe that it is more difficult for children raising by LGBTQ family gain kinship, acceptance, or security than children raising by nuclear family or children adopted by heterosexual couples. Then, people try to avoid LGBTQ couples to be parents through adoption.

Legal Hurdle for LGBTQ People

It’s tricky to say that it’s much easier for heterosexual parents (who can give birth to a child upon most occasions) to use adoption or surrogacy than LGBTQ couples (who can hardly have a child without the help of technology or government). Due to the rapidly increasing need for adoptive homes, an obvious decrease has taken place in anti-homosexuality prejudice. However, it doesn’t mean that there are no obstacles to equal treatment anymore. Outdated laws which focus on family configurations do hurt LGBTQ people who want to form a family.

First of all, there are 3 main accesses to individual adoption: (1) a public child welfare or adoption agency; (2) a private adoption agency with government permission; and (3) consensual arrangements between private parties such as inter-country adoptions (Bitler and Zavodny 2002). Nevertheless, not all the states in U.S. permit LGBTQ individuals to adopt. Presently, Florida is the only state which legally bans LGBTQ people from adopting according to the statute. FLA. STAT. CH. 63.042(3). And, whether or not LGBTQ individuals are able to adopt within specific state may also depend on which county they live in. States which own policies friendly to LGBTQ people are geographically dispersed in the United States. LGBTQ people are more likely to live in prosperous states such as California, yet states like Mississippi, Wyoming, and Alaska have a high rate of children raising by LGBTQ family (Gates 2015). The most remarkable thing of individual adoptions is that the application must be examined and approved by a court, usually after a home investigation by children welfare agency in that particular state. “Best interest of the child” is the most basic and major standard for approving an adoption. But, determining what is the best interest of the child is quite subjective and prejudiced. Basically, faith-based adoption agencies can choose not to place child or children with LGBTQ couples, with the help of Trump administration. In 2018, The House Appropriations Committee published an amendment which claimed that adoption agencies with religious conviction could have a legal right to refuse LGBTQ couples, in order to reduce the possibility of conflicts between moral convictions and work ethic (Cahill and Makadon 2017). Thus, states like South Dakota successfully “justify” discrimination based on sexual orientation in adoption. Although there are some dissenting voices, for instance, Michigan stopped funding adoption agencies which refuse to provide services for LGBTQ parents, policy reform created by President Donald Trump does intensify contradictions and inequality between the heterosexual and LGBTQ people.

Secondly, second-parent adoption, is also a possible legal way for couples to adopt her or his partner’s biological or adoptive child or children, regardless of whether they have legally recognized relationship to the first legal parent (Friday 2002). Most state adoption statutes in the U.S. allows a married person to adopt his or her spouse’s child without terminating the other spouse’s legal right for parenting. However, an unmarried couple is not allowed to adopt in this way. Since most states didn’t recognize same-sex marriages before June 26, 2015, second-parent adoption was not an available legal procedure for LGBTQ couples to adopt a child or children. Many LGBTQ couples were forced to take the third approach to gain parenthood, that is, assisting reproduction including surrogacy, and donor insemination for people.

Although, at a glance, surrogacy seems to be a win-win choice: a financial disadvantaged surrogate mother gains sufficient money for living while a couple gets their long-desired biologically baby, the whole system of commercial surrogacy is not transparent enough, including potential legal issues. Many states of the United States only recognize altruistic surrogacy; moreover, any kinds of commercial surrogacy agreements are illegal. Since this could be a lengthy procedure for promoting altruistic and not commercial surrogacy, not only LGBTQ couples but also heterosexual infertile couples can hardly gain parenthood in this way.

EXTRA ECONOMIC COSTS FOR LGBTQ PEOPLE

Except for discrimination against LGBTQ people and the social stigma of untraditional models of kinship, LGBTQ couples also have to face economic burdens that most heterosexual parents do not. One of the biggest expenses is payment for the assisting reproduction such as surrogate fee, the costs of adoption, and program application. According to the data collected by Adoptive Families Magazine, in 2012-2013, the average total cost of adopting a child from the legal adoption agency was $39,966. The average legal fees including program application were over $20,000. If someone uses surrogacy to gain parenthood, the average birth mother expense was $6,240 (2015). In addition to the above fees, there are also several seemingly insurmountable additional economic obstacles for LGBTQ families. Low-income LGBTQ parents suffer a lot, who are more likely to be people of color. In this case, they may have to face another separate set of barriers as well at the same time.

Unequal Taxation and Undue Burdens

LGBTQ families need to pay higher taxes than traditional kinship model family since they lose vital deductions and exemptions. Just like what mentioned before, LGBTQ parents usually lack legal ties to their adoptive child or children. That is to say, it is almost impossible for them to have child-related deductions or exemptions (Friday 2002). Moreover, they often have no way to receive the tax advantages of filing joint federal tax returns due to their legally unrecognized married status.

Hard to find a welcome school

It is definitely heartbreaking to say that LGBTQ parents can hardly find a welcoming school for their children. Some public schools may choose not to enroll children raised by LGBTQ parents. Even those schools admit children in LGBTQ families, around 8% of high school students report being LGBTQ. Roughly 30% of them had attempted suicide since they were more than twice likely to be bullied than straight students in public schools. What’s worse, children raised by LGBTQ families also bear a higher risk of being bullied than straight students (Muñoz-Plaza, Quinn and Rounds 2002). Additionally, if LGBTQ parents choose to send their children to private school, the tuition fee is quite prohibitive since LGBT families cannot file jointly for tax. Only the parent who has the right to claim a “qualifying relative” can gain a deduction (American Adoptions 2015).

DISCUSSION

As mentioned above, some critics claim that the social traditions of the heterosexual family face big challenges since LGBTQ people use adoption and assisted reproduction technologies. As a result, the commercialization of family formation, that is, forming a family through commercial exchanges such as paying for gestational surrogates and adoption agency fee, will gradually erode the importance of “blood” ties. Because everything can be bought and sold, people can hardly notice what is the real thing needed to protect. Then, intimate life will disappear without trace. What’s much worse, there is a hidden regulation of society connivance: financially disadvantaged females (generally with lower level of education), particularly those from the third world countries, are more likely to be the gestational carrier and young females with higher education level and beautiful appearance are more likely to be the egg donor. Hierarchy intangibly occurs. Besides, many people question the rationality of assisting reproduction technology by saying that both egg donors and gestational carriers are at risk of serving for economically privileged people. In another word, assisting reproduction technology, as proof of objectifying women, is obliterate committed by the patriarchal society. The essence of assisting reproduction technology is the denial of equality. It is not only the inequality between women and men, but also the inequality between the rich and the poor. And, there is a possibility for abuse and exploitation of women.

Basically, the above arguments are somewhat biased. First thing first, commercial surrogacy does not refer to baby selling. Although it seems to be extremely macabre and inhuman, commercial surrogacy is usually regarded as an unlawful act around the whole world. To some extent, childbirth is too cost prohibitive to be introduced to the mass market. Then, every child in adoption agencies deserves a sweet home and love that only parents are able to offer. The number of children in adoption agencies who are waiting for gaining emotional security is much greater than the people who want to adopt a child. And LGBTQ individuals and couples are the most major part of people waiting to adopting a child or children. If the public and the institutions such as courts prevent people to build kinships through the commercialization of family formation just because they think this way of family formation is seemingly inhuman, the final result of this prevention is totally inhuman since it kills the steps of chasing a lasting home for those pitiful children in adoption agencies.

In addition, no one can repudiate that people with low socioeconomic status, in particular females with low socioeconomic status, have only a little power to decide what their life will be. They are too fragile to undertake the result of political reform and economic instability, especially at the era of global trade. Furthermore, everyone has to admit that if there is a profit motive, there will and must be a commercial exchange. For people who can hardly survive, surrogacy is just one kind of jobs, and there is no difference between being a gestational carrier, a typist, or becoming a sex worker. They can only be chosen, instead of making choices. There is a need to worry about obscure regulations for market-based family formation which may contain the possibility of female exploitation and human trafficking. However, there is no need to completely deny that commercialization can be the means of building a family. Avoidance of solving existing current problem is not a long-term resolution for preventing other potential problems. And, problems raised on the way of marching forward can be solved by the development. The wealth cannot use the uterus of financially disadvantaged females if the job security and social welfare become better. The regulations for market-based family-making will be sound once the inequality between homosexual parents and LGBTQ parents is solved. More is still yet to come. People should face the current issue and potential issues with optimism.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION

For a long time, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgenders, and queers have fought industriously for equal right in many aspects of family laws, such as marriage and adoption, in order to protect their not-easily-won kinships. Nowadays, a rapidly increasing of LGBTQ families forces governments and institutions to rethink what is the hidden meaning of building a family. Also, thinking about the question – how to integrate LGBTQ people into the subsistent family law protections – become more and more imperative. Even if there are several additional avenues toward to parenthood instead of giving the birth of a child, different legal hurdles force many LGBTQ people to give up the idea of having children.

Current society and laws do not completely recognize a very real fact that multiple distinct and new models of kinship exist. Now, it is time for governments and institutions to set up public policy based on facts, instead of animus. Except achieving comprehensive legally recognition of LGBTQ family, providing equal access to state-based economic protections and educational support services to LGBTQ families is no time to delay. If institutions can evaluate prospective adoptive parents according their ability to be a good parent, which covers a wide range, from financial situation to characteristics of personality, not to their sexual orientation, the United States will make a giant leap towards to realizing LGBTQ justice and equality.

References

1. American Adoptions. 2015. American Adoptions – Comparing the Costs of Domestic,
2. International and Foster Care Adoption. Americanadoptions.com. Retrieved March 23, 2019 (https://www.americanadoptions.com/adopt/the_costs_of_adopting)
3. Bitler, M., & Zavodny, M. 2002. Did Abortion Legalization Reduce the Number of Unwanted
4. Children? Evidence from Adoptions. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 34(1), pp. 25-33.
5. Cahill, S. and Makadon, H. 2017. If They Don’t Count Us, We Don’t Count: Trump
6. Administration Rolls Back Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Data Collection. LGBT Health, 4(3), pp.171-173. Retrieved March 19, 2019 (https://www.liebertpub.com)
7. Friday, G. 2002. Coparent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents. PEDIATRICS,
8. 109(6), pp.1192-1193. Retrieved March 19, 2019 (https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/109/2/341)
9. Gamson, J. 2017. Modern families: Stories of extraordinary journeys to kinship. New York:
10. NewYork University Press. p.12-15
11. Gates, J. 2015, Demographics of Married and Unmarried Same-Sex Couples: Analyses of the
12. 2013 American Community Survey. (Los Angeles, CA: Williams Institute, UCLA School of Law) Retrieved March 19, 2019 from https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/wp-content/uploads/Demographics-Same-Sex-Couples-ACS2013-March-2015.pdf
13. Goffman, E. 1963. Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
14. Prentice-Hall, pp. 9
15. Lareau, Annette. 2002, Invisible inequality: Social class and childrearing in black families and
16. white families. American Sociological Review 67. p.747-776.
17. March, K. 1995. Perception of Adoption as Social Stigma: Motivation for Search and Reunion.
18. Journal of Marriage and the Family 57(3), p.653-660. Retrieved March 11, 2019 (https://www.jstor.org/stable/353920?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents).
19. Muñoz-Plaza, C., Quinn, S., & Rounds, K. 2002. Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender
20. Students: Perceived Social Support in the High School Environment. The High School Journal, 85(4), pp. 52-63. Retrieved March 15, 2019 from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40364353
21. Nestor, B. 2005. ATTITUDES OF CHILD PSYCHIATRISTS TOWARD HOMOSEXUAL
22. PARENTING AND CHILD CUSTODY. Family Court Review, 17(2), pp.21-24. Retrieved March 19, 2019 form https://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/parenting-issues/homosexual-parenting-is-it-time-for-change
23. Patterson, Charlotte. 2006. Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents. Current Directions in
24. Psychological Science, 15 (5), p. 241-244.
25. Stacey, Judith and Biblarz, Timothy. 2001. ‘(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents
26. Matter?’ American Sociological Review, 66(2). p. 159-183. Retrieved March 15, 2019 (https://www.academia.edu/28934728)

“I’ve seen you cringe just a little when someone says your child is lucky to have you. Because you know with all your being that it is the other way around” (Harris). This elucidates that when someone has the opportunity of becoming a caregiver they feel as if they’re the ones who are blessed rather than the child who is able to have a chance in the world. Caregiving is a very significant act of love that is shown all over the globe. It affects people of all different age groups from infants to elderly. Caregiving opportunities offered through foster care, adoption, and surrogacy prove that love is the dominant force in our world today.

Some children are blessed and have been living in a safe home since the day they were born. While others don’t get the same opportunity, but instead something similar, such as foster care. For instance, “Anthony went the longest time without being adopted; he was in foster care from age 9 all the way up to high school without having a permanent home. But the funny thing is that he preferred it that way.He’s used Forrest Gump’s famous line, “Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you’re gonna get,” to explain that he would rather have kept on having new adventures in foster care than stay somewhere forever” (Gonzalez). This demonstrates that foster care is a system for children that provides them with food, nutrition, and the necessary items they need for survival because of the difficult circumstance they had prior in their life. Additionally, in Phoenix, Arizona a young boy named Michael was in the foster care system for 832 days. When Michael spent so much time in a caring place such as foster care and finally got adopted because of that he felt ebullient and beamful (Mulroy).

Through this, it shows that foster care provides a way for children to eventually get adopted by a family and put them in a safe and loving home. If it wasn’t for foster care a lot of children from infants to 18 years old might’ve never gotten a family to call their own. Furthermore, Simone Biles, an Olympic medalist created a drive program for foster care children specifically which provided them with mattresses. Simone wants to keep the organization’s mission going by providing more hope and encouragement toward foster care children so they can reach their goals (Williams). Simone’s kind act of helping foster care children get a place to sleep shows there are organizations that help out foster care so the children there get a place to rest every night. Through all of this, foster care is able to open a door after another has been closed for a child, and it gives them a chance of opportunity in the world as well as people who go out of their way to help those in foster care all contribute to love being a dominant factor than hate in the world today. For many adolescents, adoption doesn’t mean much since we’ve never experienced it first hand, though to a child being adopted, it means the world and even brings them a lifetime of joy.

For instance, a program called Culturally Fluent Families is created for families of a different race to adopt children of another race no matter the cultural differences by Valerie Chavez. When Valerie adopted two of her children from Ethiopia, she went out of her way and stayed in her children’s country for a bit to see their native culture (Foster). This demonstrates that people make sure that when adopting a child they understand the cultural differences between them and the child’s background so they can raise them away with a mix of both. Not only that, but more people through this learn to accept that racial differences don’t matter. On the other hand, there are also programs where some people feel more comfortable with getting a child with the same ethnicity. Some adoptions they match the parents’ ethnicity with the child’s ethnicity, so the child isn’t missing anything they should’ve from their original home and the adoption is natural (‘Interracial Adoption’). To elaborate, this program allows people in control of adoption or the parents prior to making sure the child still knows about their background culture. To add on, Michele Fried, the CEO of Adoption Star, knows that adopting children is very expensive and she has created programs to help adopt children, which is one of the ways she could afford adopting one of her 10 children. The program is a fundraiser, which helps collect money to assist in the budget.With this, churches and synagogues helped assist Michele with the fundraiser (Fried). This proves that raising money to provide a home for a child is bringing the whole community together and getting them to work together with one goal. We’re taught that with adoption adults are showing love toward adopting children from, adapting to their culture background, making sure they’re the right fit for the child’s past, present, and future, and financially finding a way to make it all possible, which, all makes love stronger around the globe than hate will ever be.

Unfortunately, there are people in the world who want to conceive children and cannot, in this case, surrogacy comes in and lets them have an opportunity to become a caregiver. Notably, Shannon was all about spreading love and kindness and after she saw one of her closest friends couldn’t conceive, she noticed that she didn’t want more kids of her own, but her body is good to have more children and help couples who aren’t able to have children. She went online and did her research and saw couples that deeply wanted children and got in touch with them. From there, she met up with the parents in Sydney, Australia which was in the middle of both their locations and made sure the parents weren’t going to split up and could afford the baby. From there, she was ready to be the surrogate of the couple and do the love of labor for them to have a beautiful and loved daughter (Webeck). To clarify, Shannon’s warm-hearted act of giving another family a chance to have their own child show how much deep affection she reveals by helping another family out. Another key point is, Parfieniuk was a surrogate for an international family who flew across the world to see the surrogacy happen. The family stayed with Parfieniuk for a month until the baby was born to get to know their surrogate. After they left back to their motherland they kept her updated on the baby by sending such things as pictures. Parfieniuk had thought about surrogacy before she had even been married and she was thankful to give a couple the opportunity to grow their family (Gregory). In a word, Parfieniuk proves her endearment going through the hardships of having to be a surrogate for a couple whose homeland is thousands of miles away. Back home in America in Calfornia, Amy Kaplan is a surrogate and most of her clients are the LGBT families and Chinese; because surrogacy in China is legal and LGBT families don’t have the easiest time conceiving. She explains how surrogate get paid between $35,000 – $40, 000 though, you don’t become a surrogate for money, you instead become a surrogate because you want to help a family out (Watson & Young). As can be seen, not using surrogacy for money but instead for aiding couples demonstrates the politeness Amy has for her clients. After all, surrogates go out of their way to give their body out to another family, destroy overseas barriers, and looking beyond just the fortunes.

Love is overtaking hate in the world today due to the opportunity available to caregivers from foster care, adoption, and surrogacy. In essence, it is able to be taken away that foster care, distributes a home to a child after they’ve been through unsafe surroundings. Adoption comes in when it provides love on both ends of the child and the adult because the child gets a family to call their own and the parent gets a chance of providing love for the child and getting it back. With surrogacy, while making something so beautiful as precious as a child, you need a helping hand and there are people out there willing to lend a hand to create a family. The fact about the world is there are 8 billion people living in it and there are humans out there who are gonna want children in a safe environment, distribute a home for them, and want to give them the gift of life while feeling beyond blessed. With all of this said, love in this aspect is so powerful that it leaves hate meaning nothing in the world.

Although we hear of the Revolutionary War and think it was revolutionary, however, the revolution was what occurred after. The period from 1820-1855 is seen as revolutionary in American history due to alterations and expansion in the market economy, cotton industry, and religion. As we zoom in and examine documents about these categories, we can truly see the revolutionary changes that have been stamped into history which made America what it is today. In the 19th century, the market economy in the United States expanded swiftly due to industrialization, immigration, territorial expansion, innovations and advancements that made work more efficient and quicker. With innovations like steam power, transportation of steamboats and railroads made the economy rise creating the new national transportation network. With improvements such as the National Road, it made it easier for settlers to move West expanding the Country. In the document, “James Madison Asks Congress to Support Internal Improvements, 1815”, we can analyze the point James Madison is making for the welfare of the Country. He is supporting a system consisting of three main enforcement including tariffs to protect the American industry, a national bank to foster commerce, and internal improvements like canals, roads, and national seminaries saying, “Among the means of advancing the public interest”, “recalling the attention of Congress to the great importance of establishing throughout our country roads and canals which can best be executed under the national authority.” He reinforces his argument of internal improvements and tariffs by saying that it is a security issue for the Country to have these improvements and is imperative to protect it as he states, “whether to prevent or repel danger, we ought not to be unprepared for it… This consideration will sufficiently recommend to Congress a liberal provision for the immediate extension and gradual completion of the works of defense.” Building a “great fund of national prosperity and independence” can lead the United States to not be dependent on supplies from foreign countries for running their factory system and market economy. Madison’s revolutionary idea of America gaining good fortune through these improvements and tariffs, “In selecting the branches more especially entitled to the public patronage a preference is claimed by such as will relieve the United States from a dependence on foreign supplies ever subject to casual failures, for articles necessary for the public defense or connected with the primary wants of individuals,” changed the way the factory system functioned. This created explosive economic growth and new personal wealth for the United States. They gained an overall strength for the nation through government spending on infrastructure and designing a new way for production.

We can also view how revolutionary the market economy and industrialization were by examining the cotton industry, which was impacted significantly in this period. With the new industrial innovations, the cotton industry flourished and was mainly imported from slave plantations. Cotton arrived at the best time suited for success. With the invention of the Cotton Gin and the emergence of steam power, cotton became the main commodity. Cotton and slavery were together hand-in-hand. Cotton depended on slaves, and slaves somewhat depended on cotton. Cotton was labor intensive and a vast business in the South thus requiring a large number of laborers and slaves to keep up the production. However, the cotton revolution was a stressful time of capitalism and devastating depressions called “panics”. Many landowners expanded and bought new land, and purchased slaves which got them in extreme debt. After the American Revolution, slavery was almost everywhere in the United States even in the North. The population of slaves began to increase tremendously when the cotton boom took hold in the mid-1830s. The South relied on slave laborers because they were the foundation of their economy. Without these slaves, the cotton economy would collapse.

Slave Markets were a place where slaves were bought and sold. It was a harsh system where families were destroyed and separated and forced to migrate from one place to another and even one master to another. Some also tore apart free black families and kidnapped them into slavery. This was the exact story of Soloman Northup, a free black man in New York who was forcefully kidnapped into slavery for twelve years. In his book “ 12 Years a Slave,” he writes about the experiences he lived and describes the unpleasant and raw truths of slavery. In the document, “Solomon Northup Describes a Slave Market, 1841,” Northup simply describes what he saw and experienced as he comprehended the horrors of the slave market. Northup describes their day from the time they got up to when they got ready and went into the rooms to be examined by other slave owners, “In the first place we were required to wash thoroughly, The men were arranged on one side of the room, the women on the other. The tallest was placed at the head of the row, then the next tallest, and so on in the order of their respective heights.” He includes sarcasm to describe how inhumanely the slaves were examined and treated as if they were not human beings and just a piece of property that they had the right to touch and order what to do. He says they made them “hold up our heads, walk briskly back and forth, feel of our hands and arms and bodies.” He adds a simile to show the inhumanity in their treatment towards the slaves by making them “open our mouths and show our teeth, precisely as a jockey examines a horse which he is about to barter for or purchase.” This simile shows us to what point slavery had gotten to.

To a point where it made the slaves themselves feel less human and not worth anything. In Northup’s book, we see that Platt describes his master Ford as a “noble, candid, Christian man,” however he was forced to sell Platt due to some financial setbacks. We can see here that although they were a kind master he gave Northup up because he valued and cared more about the money. Simply because at the end of the day it’s all a business. In his book and document, he mentions Eliza, a fellow black captive and a friend of Northup, who was also affected by the market economy. She was sadly separated from her children, with nothing she could do but beg and do whatever she could to keep her family together. Northup states, “She kept on begging and beseeching them, most piteously not to separate the three. Over and over again she told them how she loved her boy. A great many times she repeated her former promises – how very faithful and obedient she would be; how hard she would labor day and night, to the last moment of her life, if he would only buy them all together. But it was of no avail; the man could not afford it,” this helps us the unpleasant and horrific side of the market and cotton economy. Their need for more slave workers and more cotton production caused the slave system to be harsher and America’s southern states became the economic engine of the burgeoning nation. Their fuel of choice? Human slavery.   

Why adopted children may be at an increased risk of being diagnosed with ADHD?

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is the diagnostic label currently used to describe one of the most frequently diagnosed neurodevelopmental disorders in children. According to the American Association of Psychiatry (APA), the prevalence of this disorder reportedly affects around 5% of the population. (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 2013)

ADHD’s primary causes are still unclear. What is known is that it is a heterogeneous and complex neurobiological disorder. Complicating matters further is the fact that it cannot be explained by a single cause but rather must be understood as relating to a series of genetic conditions in combination with other environmental factors.

It seems that genetic contribution plays an important role in ADHD diagnoses. According to various studies in families, twins, and adopted children, genetics plays a very important role in the transmission of ADHD intergenerationally. It is estimated that 70% of these causes can be attributed to genetic factors (Faraone et al., 2005). Socioeconomic factors, coupled with disorganized family dynamics and the effects institutionalization has on family upbringings, all tend to increase the risk factors associated with this condition (Jacobs, Miller & Tirella., 2010).

The prevalence of ADHD in adopted children is higher than in non-adopted children. In 1990, Verhulst, Althaus & Versluis-Den Bieman concluded a higher incidence of ADHD in the adopted group. This data coincides with that of other documented studies. For instance, Fernández et al (2017) speak of a prevalence of ADHD 15 times higher among adopted children when compared to non-adopted children.

More recent studies have also concluded that this prevalence in the diagnosis of adopted children continues to persist when compared to the general population, finding a 25 to 50% increase in adopted children (Abrimes et al 2012)

The postnatal and prenatal environment of adopted children, which may be inadequate for promoting healthy psychological development, may present one of the keys to understanding the increased incidence of such disorders within these subgroups. Broken families with few economic resources and overcrowded institutions where children are poorly attended, both physically and emotionally, also tend to produce higher incidents of new diagnoses. This essay will attempt to explore the possible reasons why adopted children are more likely to have attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).

What is ADHD and what are its risk factors?

According to the American Psychiatric Association, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder is characterized by its neurobiological nature which typically originates in childhood and implies a pattern of attention deficit, hyperactivity, and/or impulsivity. ADHD is often recognized in children when primary education begins, coinciding with difficulties in school performance and the appearance of certain social disorders.

In terms of prevalence, ADHD is one of the most frequently diagnosed psychiatric disorders in children; even higher than schizophrenia and bipolar disorder (Casas et al, 2009). It is estimated that the global prevalence of ADHD affects around 5.29% of school-age children.

Due to the complexity of ADHD, a single cause cannot be identified. It is a heterogeneous disorder with different subtypes, resulting from varied combinations of certain risk factors acting in unison with one another. However, it has been determined in numerous medical studies that these causes are mainly due to genetic and environmental factors (prenatal, perinatal, and postnatal) (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2001).

This large genetic component being a determining factor in new diagnoses has been shown in several studies. According to Faraone and colleagues, the direct family members of people with ADHD are up to eight times more likely to be diagnosed than relatives of people not affected by this condition. What makes this point particularly clear are the numerous medical studies involving twins, all of which show higher rates of ADHD heredity, ranging from 71 to 90%.

On the other hand, there are also psychosocial factors that may promote the appearance of ADHD. Factors relating to pregnancy and childbirth most often associated with new diagnoses are evident in the numerous documented studies observing the effects smoking has on pregnancy with regard to low birth weight and maternal stress (Froehlich et al., 2009). Alcohol abuse could also cause dysfunction and altered mental functioning, including Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, which has been shown to display some of the main symptoms typically associated with ADHD (Froehlich et al., 2009).

Stress, anxiety, and prenatal maternal depression are also significant factors shown to increase the risk of adverse outcomes in childhood development. Emotional problems and deterioration in cognitive development all tend to lead to symptoms associated with hyperactivity and attention deficit disorder (ADHD). Although genetics and postnatal care clearly have an effect on early childhood development, studies show prenatal maternal depression and anxiety to be amongst some of the largest contributors to new diagnoses. It is estimated that between 10 to 15% of the burden is attributable to factors related to poor prognosis (Glover, 2015).

These numerous risk factors may be more problematic in adopted children since the vast majority are not aware of their biological parents’ background or medical history. Furthermore, vital experiences in the first years of life should always be considered as many come from difficult sociological environments.

Prevalence of ADHD in adopted child

Many authors have concluded that adopted children are more likely to have an increased frequency of ADHD-associated symptoms when compared to their non-adopted counterparts. In a study published in the Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology testing a sample of 808 adopted children found that 21% of those examined had ADHD-associated symptoms. In addition to this, various other risk factors are directly correlated with this disorder, such as any abuse or neglect experienced prior to adoption. Furthermore, the age of adoption and the number of foster homes the child has been placed in since their adoption also play a factor. (Simmel, Brooks, Barth, & Hinshaw., 2001).

In another study, a sample of 200 children diagnosed with ADHD found that 17% of those diagnosed were adopted (Deutsch, CK, Swanson, JM, Bruell, JH, Cantwell, DP, Weinberg, F., & Baren, M. 1982). Following suit, another study including a sample of 37 children found ‘significant problem’ scores for hyperactivity and ADHD traits among 14% of those who had been adopted. Furthermore, other negative correlations were present in those who had been adopted later in life. (Jacobs et al., 2010).

This prevalence seems to be more characteristic in adopted children from Eastern Europe. A study by Gunnar & Van Dulmen in 2007 found more behavioral problems in adopted children from Russia when compared to adopted children from other parts of the world. In these cases, the possibility of prenatal exposure to alcohol, common in many of those countries, must be taken into consideration. However, a study by Jacobs et al, which included 37 adopted children from different parts of the world, did not find significant differences between the prevalence of ADHD symptoms in relation to the patient’s country of origin.

Prenatal alcohol exposure

Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD) constitute a group of conditions that may arise in a person whose mother drank alcohol heavily during pregnancy. These effects can include physical, behavioral, and learning problems. Commonly, people with FASD tend to suffer from a combination of these problems. FASD is associated with cognitive and behavioral alterations which, in part, are derived from the psychosocial environment where childhood development initially occurs (O’Connor & Paley., 2009).

It seems very plausible that this type of disorder correlates to increased incidents of ADHD. In a study by Fernandez et al., 2017, they found significant relationships between FASD and attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in any of its subtypes, with a 60% increase in diagnoses among adopted children. It is unknown why the gestation process of the biological mother plays a role in the frequency of diagnoses, although normally these subjects have been assessed as a risk group due to the various circumstances arising during pregnancy. One study found that alcoholism tended to occur more frequently among children whose parents had been incarcerated, especially in Eastern Europe (Johnson., 2002). These results differ according to the study. Possible prenatal exposure to alcohol may be one of the most plausible explanations for a higher incidence of ADHD in adopted children.

A study by Langred and colleagues in 2010 examined 71 adopted children from Eastern Europe to determine whether or not they suffered from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome (FAS). The results concluded that 52% of children studied had this disorder. Researchers also found that these Children presented different behavioral problems, with ADHD having one of the highest incidence rates, with 52% being from Western populations. The prevalence of FAS is 3 to 7 cases per 1000 children; however, higher rates have been recorded when less developed subpopulations like South Africa were investigated, finding a prevalence of 68 to 89 cases. (May et al., 2007).

References

1. Abrines, N., Barcons, N., Marre, D., Brun, C., Fornieles, A., & Fumadó, V. (2012). ADHD-like symptoms and attachment in internationally adopted children. Attachment & human development, 14(4), 405-423.
2. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5®). American Psychiatric Pub.
3. Bush, G., Spencer, T. J., Holmes, J., Shin, L. M., Valera, E. M., Seidman, L. J., … & Biederman, J. (2008). Functional magnetic resonance imaging of methylphenidate and placebo in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder during the multi-source interference task. Archives of General Psychiatry, 65(1), 102-114.
4. Deutsch, C. K., Swanson, J. M., Bruell, J. H., Cantwell, D. P., Weinberg, F., & Baren, M. (1982). Overrepresentation of adoptees in children with attention deficit disorder. Behavior Genetics, 12(2), 231-238.
5. Faraone, S. V., Perlis, R. H., Doyle, A. E., Smoller, J. W., Goralnick, J. J., Holmgren, M. A., & Sklar, P. (2005). Molecular genetics of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Biological psychiatry, 57(11), 1313-1323.
6. Fernandez-Jaen, A., Lopez-Martin, S., Albert, J., Martin, D. F. M., Fernandez-Perrone, A. L., Calleja-Perez, B., & Lopez-Arribas, S. (2017). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: from a neurodevelopmental perspective. Revista de neurologia, 64(s01), S101-S104.
7. Froehlich, T. E., Lanphear, B. P., Auinger, P., Hornung, R., Epstein, J. N., Braun, J., & Kahn, R. S.(2009). Association of tobacco and lead exposures with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Pediatrics, 124(6), e1054–e1063,
8. Glover, V. (2015). Prenatal stress and its effects on the fetus and the child: possible underlying biological mechanisms. In Perinatal programming of neurodevelopment (pp. 269-283). Springer, New York, NY.
9. Gunnar, M. R., & Van Dulmen, M. H. (2007). Behavior problems in postinstitutionalized internationally adopted children. Development and Psychopathology, 19(1), 129-148.
10. Jacobs, E., Miller, L. C., & Tirella, L. G. (2010). Developmental and behavioral performance of internationally adopted preschoolers: A pilot study. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 41(1), 15-29.
11. Johnson, D. E. (2002). Adoption and the effect on children’s development. Early human development, 68(1), 39-54.
12. Maclean, K. (2003). The impact of institutionalization on child development. Development and Psychopathology, 15(4), 853-884.
13. May, P. A., Gossage, J. P., Marais, A. S., Adnams, C. M., Hoyme, H. E., Jones, K. L., … & Hendricks, L. (2007). The epidemiology of fetal alcohol syndrome and partial FAS in a South African community. Drug and alcohol dependence, 88(2-3), 259-271.
14. O’Connor, M. J., & Paley, B. (2009). Psychiatric conditions associated with prenatal alcohol exposure. Developmental disabilities research reviews, 15(3), 225-234.
15. Rutter, M., Andersen-Wood, L., Beckett, C., Bredenkamp, D., Castle, J., Groothues, C., … & O’Connor, T. G. (1999). Quasi-autistic patterns following severe early global privation. The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 40(4), 537-549.
16. Sprich, S., Biederman, J., Crawford, M. H., Mundy, E., & Faraone, S. V. (2000). Adoptive and biological families of children and adolescents with ADHD. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 39(11), 1432-1437.
17. Simmel, C., Brooks, D., Barth, R. P., & Hinshaw, S. P. (2001). Externalizing symptomatology among adoptive youth: Prevalence and preadoption risk factors. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 29(1), 57-69.
18. Verhulst, F. C., Althaus, M., & Versluis-Den Bieman, H. J. (1990). Problem behavior in international adoptees: I. An epidemiological study. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 29(1), 94-103.

Introduction

The Cambridge Dictionary defines adoption as ‘the act of legally taking a child to be taken care of as your own.’ (Cambridge Dictionary, n.d.). It is something that can give children a better life when their parents are not there or are not fit to take care of them. Even though certain guidelines say that every child has the right to grow up in a family environment, this is not always possible. Sometimes this can even mean that a child can be taken out of their country of origin to grow up in a stable and loving environment. This form of adoption is called intercountry adoption and has sparked controversy in recent years with even celebrities adopting children from other countries. This controversy is especially present around adoption from third-world countries. On the one hand, it is seen as a way to help a child grow up in a better environment but on the other hand, many feel that it is a form of exploitation and that when adoption becomes transracial children can lose their ethnic identity. Another issue surrounding intercountry adoption is whether the adoption system works in protecting children. When trying to figure out whether adoption is ethical there are three things to be looked at: The first is why people adopt, the next is what kind of effect intercountry adoption has on children, and last whether the adoption system can be fixed or altered to ensure the wellbeing of children.

Why do people adopt?

When looking at the question of whether adoption is fair, it is important to consider why people adopt children. There are different types of reasons why people choose to adopt. First are medical reasons. One of the most common reasons for adoption is infertility. Some couples cannot have a biological child even after months or even years of treatments and use adoption as a last resort to still have children or because they know for certain they will have a child at the end of the process, whereas this can be uncertain with infertility treatments. Then some women have medical issues that make it either impossible or very dangerous for them to be pregnant. For them, adoption is also an option to become a mother without risking their health. The last medical reason is that some couples are worried that they will pass down a genetic disease or disorder. If they are aware that there is a high risk of passing a disease down to a biological child, they could opt for adoption instead to ensure that they have a healthy child.

In some cases, it is impossible to have children the natural way. A single man or woman could realize that without a partner there is no way to have children the natural way and so adoption is one of the only other options to still become a parent. Same-sex couples could also decide to adopt if they do not want only one of the parents to have a genetic connection to the child through for example IVF.

Some couples choose to adopt because they want an older child. They might not be ready to raise a child from birth and adopt a teenager because they are more interested or prepared for that. Other couples decide that they want their child to be a certain gender and adopt so that this gender is guaranteed. The incorporation of different ethnicities into a family can be another incentive for couples to adopt. The issue with the reasoning of wanting a specific ethnicity is that many find it unnecessary and even exploitation of the child to adopt them just for the sole reason of wanting a different ethnicity within a family. This often results in intercountry or interracial adoption which could lead to a negative effect on the children or family when not thought through.

Another type of motive for adoption could be to help out family or friends. Some couples adopt the child of a friend or family member who is not capable of raising the child or because the mother is not ready to have a child and has other life plans. In other cases when a parent gets remarried the stepparent can adopt the stepchild to gain legal benefits and blend the family.

People also adopt because they want to help a child in need. They want to offer a child safety and stability that they wouldn’t have otherwise. This is often the case with intercountry adoption because people think they can give the child a better upbringing in a different country where there is more opportunity. When couples adopt for this reason it brings issues since some consider it as doing a good deed and can make a child feel like they should always be grateful which in turn can affect them negatively.

Religion can also influence couples to adopt. Some people feel like it is their calling due to their religion or ethical values. In this case, it is not just because they want a child but because adoption may have been something, they believed they had to do for years.

Adoption is also common for people who were adopted themselves. If it worked out well for them, they may want to give the same opportunity to someone else. Couples could also be inspired by people close to them who have adopted children and consider it to add to their family (American Adoptions, 2011).

What effect does intercountry adoption have on children?

The positive effects of adoption are that a child gets to grow up with more opportunities than they would have had where they were from. They can be raised in a safe, loving environment that can offer them stability. That would be the argument that is used to defend intercountry adoption when looking at how it impacts the lives of the children. Despite this argument, many arguments against it claim a negative effect on children.

According to UNICEF, there have been more and more efforts to ensure that adoptions are transparent, non-exploitative, legal and work to benefit the children and families involved. The issue is that in some cases adoptions do not meet the requirements and the procedures in place are not effective in preventing unethical practices such as child trafficking, child abduction, coercion of birth parents, bribery, and forgery of documents (UNICEF, 2015).

Although it is argued that helping one child is better than helping none. Many critics argue that intercountry adoption only helps a comparatively small number of children and might obstruct countries from creating programs that would benefit most of the children who suffer due to poverty or political issues. Birth parents suffering poverty and hardship are often more vulnerable to coercion into giving up their child for financial gain and because of limited post-adoption contact opportunities these children often become completely disconnected from their heritage. The growth in intercountry adoption and the increase in the supply and demand of children have created market-related conditions for the legitimate trade of children. Under these circumstances, it becomes very hard to protect the rights of the child since the nature of adoptions becomes commercial. This also raises concerns that the adoption process’s legality could become less of a concern due to the wealth of the adopter or agency. Then there is also the concern that intercountry adoptions could be used for trafficking, which is often ignored. This also is a major risk for children who are already in a very vulnerable position (ZERO TO THREE Corner, 2010).

Intercountry adoption is often transracial, which can have serious effects on both the child and the family involved. Therefore, this is also a very controversial subject to most. The majority of social workers will accept that it is better to place a child with a loving family regardless of their ethnic background and that with sensitive parenting it is possible to keep a child close to their heritage despite a difference in race. Many adoption agencies say that it is better to place a child with a family of the same background since they can offer a child a role model and are more qualified to teach the child about his or her heritage and culture. which adoptive parents may not be fully aware of or prepared for at the time of adoption. Why this is important because studies show that international adoptees are often confused about their race, ethnicity, and cultural identity, along with this they also often experience discrimination and racism which some families may not be equipped to deal with if they have not had the same experiences. Culture usually has a positive meaning but for some adopted children it can be associated with loss, deprivation, or abuse. When there is no one in place to help a child deal with their feelings and connect to their culture positively it can cause behavioral or mental issues (Time, n.d.; NCBI, 2005).

What also tends to happen with intercountry adoption is that it is expected that adoptees are grateful for the new life they have been given. It is seen as ungrateful when these adoptees share feelings of pain, uncertainty, or homesickness because the adoptive parents see themselves as savior who should be thanked. When it is suggested that these adoptees need to quiet down about their feelings not only denies the child their rights but also puts them in a situation where they do not feel like part of the family but feel like charity instead (Time, n.d.).

Children who have been adopted internationally often come from completely different cultures and deprived settings, which means that when they arrive at their new home, they will have to make major adjustments very quickly. For many children, this goes well but for some, this transition can be difficult and cause certain behavioral, developmental, and mental health issues. Internationally adopted children also are at a greater risk of exposure to infectious diseases, malnutrition, or other illnesses. In certain cases, adoptive parents are not fully aware of or prepared for these risks which can affect the child negatively (ZERO TO THREE Corner, 2010; NCBI, 2005).

One of the worst problems in adoption is also referred to as child laundering which means that a child is illegally taken from its birthparents and then the official adoption process is used to bring this child into a different country as legally adopted. When this occurs, the parents are often coerced into giving up their child with the promise of financial gain or the child is abducted. Not only is this illegal, but it means that there was no reason for this child to be taken from their family and no reason to put them through a mentally straining process that completely alters their life. (Save the Children, 2012)

Can the international adoption system be fixed or altered to ensure the well-being of children?

The adoption system can be fixed but it will take a lot of change to do so, so the question is whether those changes will be made. The 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoptions was already a large step towards reforming the adoption system. It is currently approved by 95 countries and sets out obligations for the authorities in the countries that send and receive adoptees. The Convention is designed to ensure ethical and transparent processes consider the best interests of the children and deliver the basis for the application of the ethics concerning inter-country adoption that is part of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. These obligations are making sure that only competent authorities authorize adoptions, with informed permission from all parties included, that intercountry adoption has the same standards as national adoptions, and that intercountry adoption does not cause inappropriate financial gain (UNICEF, 2015).

Even though the 1993 Hague Convention was a major step in fixing the intercountry adoption system, a lot more will have to be done for it to work as intended. In a way the adoption system legitimizes allows and maybe even causes practices such as stealing, kidnapping, trafficking, and buying of children. this can happen because of certain faults in the laws and practices in the adoption system.

The reforms that should be put in place are that agencies should be required to reveal the fees of intercountry adoption to adoptive parents in a standard format that is detailed to ensure that all the money is used as intended. These fees should only go to a certain limit to combat the parties involved making more profit than is reasonable. Along with the reforms about fees, the agencies need to be able to be held accountable through liability insurance and should also be held accountable for their foreign partners. Lastly, the licensing and regulations for adoption agencies should be more strict

There are certain complications with implementing these reforms, one being that it is doubtful that they will be popular within the adoption agencies. Another is that families in developing countries are vulnerable and do not have a voice in most countries that bring in a lot of adopted children. Their kids usually do not even know about their origins and the fact that they were illegally taken and if they do, they usually will not come forward. In politics, it is probably also not a priority since the families in sending countries are not a part of the country they are sent to, and so they are invisible to the government of the receiving country and those governments are also dealing with more pressing matters. Even the authorities that are supposed to target child trafficking and children’s rights might disregard this issue if they are directed to focus on trafficking for sex or labor.

(Child laundering: how the intercountry adoption system legitimizes and incentivizes the practices of buying, trafficking, kidnapping, and stealing children, 2006)

Conclusion

The question of whether adoption from third-world countries is ethical is a difficult one and may to some always remain unanswerable. The answer to this question was found using three sub-questions:

• Why do people adopt?
• What effect does intercountry adoption have on children?
• Can the international adoption system be fixed or altered to ensure the well-being of children?

From the answer to the first sub-question, one can conclude that there are a lot of reasons why people choose to adopt and that there are certain reasons that have caused further scrutiny by critics because they could seem as if they are not in the best interest of the child. The next sub-question gives alternative outcomes to how a child is affected depending on how the process works but even in the best case could still have some sort of a negative effect, which would already give enough reason to say that intercountry adoption might not be the best option. The last sub-question complicates the final answer even more since the adoption system can be fixed but if nothing changes it could be better not to risk putting children in such a vulnerable position. All in all, the question of whether adoption from third world countries should be answered with yes or no.

Yes, it is ethical if the adoptive parents do it for the right reasons, are given the right resources to be able to give their child the guidance needed in that situation, and if the adoption process goes legally as it was intended to.

No, it is not ethical when adoptive parents do not choose adoption for the right reason, are not prepared to give the child the guidance needed, and when the system fails.

Bibliography

1. ADOPTION | meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved December 20, 2018, from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/adoption
2. Intercountry adoption. (n.d.). Retrieved December 20, 2018, from https://www.unicef.org/media/intercountry-adoption
3. Intercountry Adoption [PDF]. (2012, June).
4. Laurance, J. (2006, October 6). Adopt children from the developing world? The Independent. doi:https://www.independent.co.uk/
5. Rochat, T., & Richter, L. (2010, July). International Adoption: Benefits, Risks, and Vulnerabilities. Retrieved January 3, 2019, from https://perspectives.waimh.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/9/2017/05/Zero-to-Three-Corner.-International-Adoption-Benefits-Risks-and-Vulnerabilities.pdf
6. Smolin, D. M. (2006). CHILD LAUNDERING: HOW THE INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION SYSTEM LEGITIMIZES AND INCENTIVIZES THE PRACTICES OF BUYING, TRAFFICKING, KIDNAPING, AND STEALING CHILDREN [PDF].
7. Valby, K. (n.d.). The Realities of Raising a Kid of a Different Race. Retrieved December 20, 2018, from http://time.com/the-realities-of-raising-a-kid-of-a-different-race/
8. Weitzman, C., & Albers, L. (2005, October). Long-term developmental, behavioral, and attachment outcomes after international adoption. Retrieved December 19, 2018, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16154469
9. ‘What does adoption mean to a child?’ (n.d.). Retrieved January 2, 2019, from https://www.americanadoptions.com/adopt/why-people-adopt

Children are being placed in foster care all over the world. The reasons can vary some kids are left to fend for themselves because their parents don’t want them or something tragic happens and there is no one left to care for the child or children. LGBT youth are extremely over-represented in the foster care world. The LGBT youth community comprises about 5 to 10 percent of the total foster youth population of approximately 408,425 in the United States. (Abbott, Shoe, Hiniker, Holger-Ambrose, Staudenmaie). When you look at those numbers you might think that this isn’t a lot but in reality, that’s just a rough estimate of the youth that have come out to their facilities or homes. There are factors for kids who identify as LGBT that can be the same as those who don’t identify; however, these kids can experience things in harsher ways than those who don’t identify as LGBT. They face additional challenges in learning to manage a stigmatized identity and to cope with social, educational, and community environments in which victimization and harassment are the norms according to Abbott, Shoe, Hiniker, Holger-Ambrose, and Staudenmaie. There are things we know about the LGBT community in foster care but more concrete research has to be done. Fields explains “We know, for example, that children who are LGBT are more likely to be placed in group settings and experience multiple placements. They are less likely to achieve permanence.” (Field, 2018) These kids need people to listen to them, help them and most of all accept them for who they are.

The people you think will be there to help are the same people that do the discriminate against LGBT kids. The discrimination these children face varies but it is seen mostly as being biased, judgmental, or unaccepting. Stigma and discrimination are the natural consequences of these people’s unaccepting attitudes and beliefs. (Salazar, McCowan, Cole, Skinner, Noell, Colito, Haggerty, & Barkan, 2018). The caregivers, foster families, jobs, social workers, and their own families can be the sources of unfair treatment. The same people that these kids depend on after they are taken out of their homes and placed into unknown territory. Some people can be considered Homophobic, which is defined as a fear or hatred of people who are attracted to, or intimate with, members of the same sex or there are often signs of Heterosexism at an institutional level; that is, in the form of laws or policies which provide rights or privileges to heterosexual, but not LGBT, individuals (Ross, Epstein, Goldfinger, Steele, Anderson, & Strike, 2008). The hardships that these kids endure are more than we know and then to come and be judged for the way you are adding on a whole new level of fear and pressure. When the child is in the care of the foster system it is the responsibility of the people around that person to support them, listen, and be understanding. Foster care is supposed to be a fresh start for these children with fair treatment, not exclusion because they are being themselves.

Despite the social changes towards the LGBT community, many legal challenges still arise for sexual- and gender-minority parents, regarding adoption or in this case the lack of adoptions. Just as these kids are being discriminated against so are the LGBT adults that are trying to adopt them. This discrimination reduces the number of people who are willing to take LGBT kids because of the treatment by the system. Some countries or states go as far as to restrict the adoption of children by openly lesbian, gay, or bisexual people. (Ross, Epstein, Goldfinger, Steele, Anderson, & Strike, 2008). However, adoption is one of the only ways that LGBT couples can have children so not only are these people keeping kids from getting families, they are restricting people from becoming parents. LGBT partners are discriminated against based on who they love and the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services has done are trying to restrict LGBT families by not allowing them to have a joint- adoption. (Family Equality Council, 2017). Thus restricting their options and dreams of having a family. In the United States, same-sex couples are more likely than heterosexual couples to have adopted children; however, this isn’t allowed to happen because these parents are being discriminated against. (Farr, & Goldberg, 2018). Everyone has a right to fair and equal treatment no matter what and these biases are creating an environment unwelcoming to the LGBT community. This has to change for the system to change.

One of the biggest problems regarding LGBT foster kids is the fact that they aren’t being treated fairly in protective services. These children are being discriminated against for their sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression. The objective of foster care is defined by the Human Rights Campaign as “24-hour substitute care for children placed away from their parents or guardians and for whom the [State] agency has placement and care responsibility.” This means that it is supposed to be a place for children to feel accepted, safe, and be treated fairly. Their caregivers are supposed to [make the effort to] learn more about the children and young people—including their intersecting racial and ethnic identities—which will help them to better meet their needs, address disproportionate entries, and improve what have often been dismal child outcomes according to the statement of Field. Workers should be able to give out cues as to their status on discussing issues of gender/sexual orientation; however, they can be seen looking for these cues in the child which can make for uncomfortable and tense situations. Every child is supposed to be given equal treatment but that just is not the case in this situation. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) quotes a statement by Barack Obama that reflects the way that a foster home is supposed to be. He says “All young people, regardless of what they look like, which religion they follow, who they love, or the gender they identify with, deserve the chance to dream and grow in a loving, permanent home.” This is the dream for all children that are taken from their homes and placed into the system unfortunately, it is still a dream for most LGBT children.

For years the LGBT community and people who support the community have been fighting for equal treatment and representation. In the foster care system, people are trying to stop the discrimination happening towards LGBT children. In one specific case, we have Jennifer Redmond who runs a group home in Laveen that houses only LGBT foster teens. Her motto is “working on understanding definitions, understanding what LGBT means so that our staff understands pronouns, things that kids would like to be called,” said Redmond. She is one person trying to make things better for the whole group one step at a time. She is leading a wave of change that needs more awareness and exposure. People need to understand what these children experience. They are just kids trying to find their way in the world one step at a time. They need the same support and guidance as any other child would.

Introduction

The idea of adoption has usually been acquainted to us, however, have we ever puzzled about what precisely its method is and what its roots are? A thrilling truth indicates that the adoption of youngsters dates lower back to historical Rome. In this essay, I will be conscious of precisely the period of Adoption and its relation to regulation, in addition to the opinion of younger humans inside the Republic of Macedonia approximately it. Adoption troubles are at the upward thrust and are not unusual place trouble for younger mothers and fathers who are determined to take this step. I may also be talking approximately the records of adoption from historical Rome to the present day. At the cease of this essay I can supply the fast survey that changed into a request for younger humans in my municipality. This essay investigates the evolution of adoption through time and humans’s perceptions of adoption. Adoption in Macedonia is a nearly unknown period due to the fact for most younger couples it is a taboo subject matter and as a result, many youngsters who’ve misplaced their mother and father are doomed to be placed on a ready listing to be followed with the aid of using an own circle of relatives as I stated on this essay.

History of adoption: Ancient Rome till the 1600s

The period of Adoption dates lower back to historical Rome. Back in the sixth century in Roman regulation, Codex Justinianus treated this difficulty so that households with few male heirs ought to undertake every other son that allows you to lightly distribute the wealth inside the own circle of relatives. Adoption persevered on this route throughout the Byzantine Empire, however with the arrival of the Middle Ages slowly certainly the policies of adoption changed. This is wherein the opinion of nations like France, Italy, and England that ban Adoption comes into play. The motive for that is due to the fact they believed that the entirety that changed into materially acquired, ought to stay a few of the royal blood. At the same time, the exercise of leaving youngsters in a monastery with the aid of bad households who had been not able to take care of them started, so that later the youngsters may be looked after with the aid of using a noble circle of relatives or the monastery itself. The monastery typically took care of those youngsters as much as a certain age so as for those youngsters to later grow to be clergymen and serve the Church. But with the upward thrust of such instances, the primary troubles concerning the adoption of the monasteries arose and the church determined that the following step could be to open the primary orphanages in Europe. The inflow of deserted youngsters will fill the orphanages and it’ll visit the volume that every one monasteries, orphanages in addition to non-public and public homes can be overcrowded without the opportunity of assisting those orphans. These households will cope with the youngsters and the youngsters may have the possibility to analyze a change with which they may be sufficiently educated for the relaxation in their lives. Interestingly, I got here through a few very essential statistics The world’s first followed infant changed into 7-year-antique Benjamin Ethanon, who lived and labored inside the Jamestown colony in 1636.

History of Adoption: nineteenth to twentieth century

As time went on with the aid of using, the shape of adoption advanced increasingly more. It changed into not visible simplest as being concerned for a kid as much as the age of 18 or simply because of the belief that the kid could be a likely inheritor to the own circle of relatives however adoption changed into being used to sell the high-quality hobby withinside the infant withinside the depend of circumstances. In 1851, the Massachusetts Child Adoption Act became the primary adoption regulation to shield kid’s rights. The courtroom docket may have the assignment of figuring out whether or not the adoptive mother and father had the consent of the organic mother and father of the kid to be his or her guardians. Furthermore, the primary assignment of the adoptive mother and father changed into offering a cushy existence for the kid and offering them the appropriate training. Unfortunately, with the evolution of cutting-edge guns and the arrival of the First World War, the variety of orphans will grow and the orphanages can be overcrowded. In 1954, Charles Loring Brans, director of the Society for the Care of Neglected Children, came up with the concept of transporting those youngsters from city regions along with New York to rural regions inside the Midwest. Some reviews around 120,000 youngsters have now no longer been cared for with the aid of households inside the Middle East and plenty have died in unlucky circumstances. Yet even though Orphan Trains had been under doubtful circumstances, this increased the concept of cutting-edge orphanages In 1891, Michigan became the primary nation to invite judges to approve the Moral Character of Potential Adopters to assist and teach orphans. After this, many states started to skip legal guidelines permitting the adoption of orphans, after which in 1909, at the White House, President Theodore Roosevelt proposed that the concept changed into to be rejected at a convention for carefree youngsters. This could bring about many states starting to enact adoption legal guidelines, mainly due to the advent of the primary American adoption corporations in 1910. Adoption changed into in large part regulation in 1917. Agencies took care of pre- and post-placement adoptions. Adoption data had been additionally marked as transferable and as such had been to be had simplest to the adoptive own circle of relatives in addition to the organic mother and father.

History of adoption: World War I till the mid-1900s

The aftermath of the First World War delivered huge numbers of orphans in addition to the 1918 flu epidemic. Adoptions persevered to upward thrust and in 1935 the Social Security Act caused improved foster care inside the United States. Before the early 1900s, most youngsters had been preschoolers, however, after the cease of the Second World War, increasingly more adoptive mothers and fathers were determined to undertake infants. Interestingly, most corporations implemented „racial matching’ wherein the enterprise will reunite households with youngsters of their very own race. As time went on, the call for toddler adoption improved, prompting corporations to take steps to develop their horizons, and this caused the primary interracial adoption, i.e. an African-American infant being given to a white mother and father. Shortly after the outbreak of World War II, worldwide adoption started, with orphans from Germany being despatched to households in Greece, Japan, or even the United States. whole the adoption of the kid inside the us wherein it changed into despatched. This procedure persevered, and throughout the Fifties, the outbreak of the Vietnam and Korean Wars brought about a fair extra variety of orphans. Harry and Bertha Holt’s selection changed into to foyer for the Congress to undertake those ready youngsters. This additionally led the circle of relatives to set up the primary worldwide adoption enterprise, Holt International Children’s Services, which nonetheless exists today. A wide variety of home adoptions within the United States changed in 1970, while the discern approached 175,000 instances in keeping with the year. Approximately eighty percent of them had been shriveled with the aid of corporations. In 1975, Delaware became the primary nation to prohibit enterprise-facilitated adoptions and plenty of states observed suit. In the years that observed, the adoption fee declined because of the provision of contraceptives. This led destiny potential adopters to recollect extra interracial and transnational adoptions as a manner of constructing their households at the same time the growing adoption of youngsters with disabilities started.

History of Adoption: Nineteen Sixties to Today

During the Nineteen Sixties, corporations started to perceive youngsters who had been inside the procedure of being followed. These youngsters had been categorized as youngsters with unique desires due to their identified disability, their age, their appointment as a part of a sibling organization, or even their race. Increased efforts to keep training for those youngsters have brought about the adoption of unique desires adoption turning into extra broadly accepted. This approach is usually a quicker manner to adopt with the aid of using ready households. The Hague Convention on the Protection of Children entered into pressure in 1993. This conference laid down the policies and guidelines referring to the implementation of the adoption of those instances and, of specific importance, ensured that each adoption change into achieved within the maximum criminal and ethnically viable manner. This changed into specifically essential as rumors surfaced of essential corrupt adoption regulations around the arena. It additionally had a terrible impact as many nations rushed to shut their doorways to worldwide adoption (Guatemala in 2008).

Survey results

In the following component, I will speak the information received from the studies I performed in the territory of the metropolis of Skopje, extra in particular within the municipality of Gjorce Petrov. Based on the amassed information, I acquired statistics that 70% of the respondents are girls, and at the same time as the last 30% are male.

These statistics suggest that girls are freer to present their opinion on this subject matter at the same time as men nonetheless desire to preserve their opinion to themselves. When asked if they stated the period of Adoption, 97% of respondents stated they were acquainted with the period, and at the same time the opposite 2% stated they had been unexpected with the period.

On the query of what adoption is, those are a number of the critiques I acquired:

If the solution to the preceding query changed into sure ought to you in brief explain what adoption is?

1. Adoption is when companions determine to legally gain an infant that has no mother and father and lives in foster care that has been assigned with the aid of the government. The mother and father take the kid as their very own (the kid gets their surname, lives with them … essentially will become their criminal infant even though they’re now no longer the kid’s organic mother and father.)
2. Taking care, loving, and developing a domestic for youngsters that don’t have it or get hold of it.
3. Adoption is a procedure wherein you may undertake an infant so you can boost it as your very own.
4. An adoption is the procedure through which a character can follow to harbor an infant to attend to him and offer fundamental methods like food, refuge, and well-being.
5. Adoption is a procedure while and character can get criminal guardianship over a child who’s in a specialized organization for deserted youngsters.
6. Adoption is when a person who isn’t an organic discern to at least one infant decides to attend to it and grow to be its discern or a criminal parent.
7. Taking care of an infant that biologically isn’t yours, but legally is.

In the following example, I have observed that the share of mother and father who determine in this step is extraordinarily high. 84% stated that they understand the motives why such a lot of younger mothers and fathers determine in this step and at the same time the last 15% no longer supply their answer.

These are a number of the subsequent critiques:

1. Because they can’t have youngsters on their very own.
2. Fertility troubles on each or simply one side, identical intercourse couples, now no longer looking a being pregnant but looking a their circle of relatives.
3. Most of the time it’s far because mother and father can’t have an infant for a few motives.
4. They can’t have youngsters because of scientific motives, they’re in a gay marriage and can’t conceive an infant, they need to feature a brand new man or woman to their circle of relatives however do now no longer need to head through the start procedure. .. and plenty of extra motives.
5. If one younger couple looks like they are able to make a store domestic for a person, or perhaps if they need their circle of relatives but can’t have youngsters due to scientific motives, they’re adopting.
6. Maybe the couple can’t have organic youngsters, perhaps they need to assist the youngsters who are orphaned perhaps they’re a gay couple … and plenty of extra motives
7. They need extra youngsters, they’re now no longer capable of conceiving on their very own …
8. Infertility, not able to duplicate thru anatomy, assist
9. Not being capable of producing their very own infant or in reality looking after the existence of an infant without an organic mother and father.
10. A couple can determine to undertake an infant if one of the associates is infertile, or in standard a pair ought to determine to undertake an infant even though they have an infant it’s far a query of empathy.
11. Adoption is a while companion determined to legally gain an infant that has no mother and father and lives in foster care that has been assigned with the aid of the government. The mother and father take the kid as their very own ( the kid receives their surname, lives with them… essentially will become their criminal infant even though they’re now no longer the kid’s organic mother and father.
12. Adoption is a procedure while and character can get criminal guardianship over a child who’s in a specialized enterprise for deserted youngsters
13. selection to take an infant, to undertake, while u could have your very own
14. Stepping right into a discern or parent position to someone who doesn’t have one
15. Adoption is a procedure wherein u can undertake an infant so u can boost it as your very own.
16. Giving a loving domestic to an infant that has misplaced his discern
17. The procedure of legally taking every other’s infant and bringing it up as one’s very own.
18. Someone above the age of 18 looking after an infant
19. Taking every other’s infant to be legally yours.
20. Adoption is the act of taking something on as your very own.
21. Adoption is when a person who isn’t an organic discern to at least one infant decides to attend to it and grow to be it discern.
22. Taking care, loving, and developing a domestic for youngsters that do not have it or get hold of it.
23. Taking care of an infant that biologically isn’t yours, but legally is short – orphan-deserted infant receives new own circle of relatives
24. Adoption is whilst you undertake an infant
25. An adoption is the procedure through which a character can follow to harbor an infant to attend to him and offer fundamental methods like food, refuge, and precise well-being.
26. Adoption is when someone legally is looking after every other infant and bringing it up as one’s very own.
27. Process wherein someone is parenting every other typically an infant from that people organic mother and father.
28. People who need to assist and offer domestic undertake youngsters without a mother and father.

In the following query requested by the respondents, 55% stated that they understand a person from a near own circle of relatives or an acknowledged man or woman who determined in this step.

The subsequent query changed into associated with how widely known the information may be approximately an adoptive discern.

36% of the solutions are girls and at the same time the last 63% are male, right here we can see that the male populace is extra knowledgeable approximately this difficulty.

This query refers back to the criminal documentation that desires to be used inside the procedure of adoption of an infant and this devastating truth indicates to us the actual photograph of the adoption procedure inside the Republic of Macedonia.

In the following query, we can see a number of the motives that could deter respondents from adopting an infant.

In the Republic of Macedonia, of course, some folks aren’t healthy of adopting youngsters. In this difficulty, the respondents needed to give an explanation for which organization of humans isn’t appropriate for adopting an infant.

Finally, the respondents needed to supply a very last grade for this survey

Conclusion

Throughout the records, we can see that adoption is a period that has been acknowledged in the arena when you consider that historical Rome. Adoption is an exhausting procedure that many younger couples face. As I stated, that is an herbal procedure and ought to now no longer be understood with a terrible impact. My opinion is that with the aid of using commencing extra houses for orphans, we can be capable of supplying a healthy domestic and a loving existence to many youngsters.

The truth that the orphanages in Macedonia are already complete and there are fewer and fewer confirms the statistics that youngsters without mother and father and domestic will discover their lifestyles on the streets and consequently supplement the already darkish photograph of the state of affairs in Macedonia.

References

1. https: adoption.or what-is-the-records-of-adoption
2. https: adoption network.com records-of-adoption
3. https:www.adoptionchoices.orgrecords-of-adoption-and-statistics
4. https: docs. google.comformsd1fmdzt_pJsfs_EFQBYosoX348Ker-peRECOQs6ApcqJcedit

 

Since forever, ‘nature vs. nurture’ has been a battle between whether the environment of an individual or their genetic makeup shapes their personality and social development more. While nature refers to genetics and biology, nurture refers to external factors that influence a person’s behavior after pregnancy, such as life experiences and parental influences. Psychological researchers are exploring the various ways in which nature influences and nurtures (S. McLeod, 2018). Most people agree that nature and nurture both are important and that without either one a person could not develop to her fullest potential. Yet, most of these studies affirm that genes are of greater influence when it comes to comparing adopted versus biological children. This allows one to think about the possibility of genes contributing more to adopted children’s behavioral and adjustment problems as compared to the environment being more influential. The genetics and environment of adopted children increase the chances of behavioral problems, although genes and the environment play a role, genes are more dominant.

Adoption is the permanent legal transfer of all parental rights from one person or couple to another person or couple. Adoptive parents have the same rights and responsibilities as biological parents and adopted children have all of the emotional, social, legal, and kinship benefits of biological children. Since ancient times, people have adopted children. Adoptees’ numbers were last collected in 1992 by The Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. Around 127,000 adoptions took place in the U.S. in 1992. According to statistics from 2008, there are 1.5 million adopted children in the U.S. Adoption makes up 2 percent of all U.S. children (Donaldson, 2008). Children who have been adopted or born naturally are not genetically related, so any resemblance resulting from the environment between the siblings would be unavoidable. Also, genetic risk can be measured using data about biological parents.

• Different adoption methods are available under the law because different families have different needs, there are several types of adoption:
• Interracial Adoption:( transracial adoption) means placing a child from one race or ethnicity with adoptive parents from a different race or ethnicity.
• International Adoption: The process of recognizing someone as the legal and permanent parent (s) of a child born abroad conforms to the laws of the country where the parent and the child reside.
• Relative Adoption: it occurs when a biological relative legally adopts a child.
• Stepchild Adoption: it occurs when a spouse of a child’s parent legally adopts the child.
• Adopting Adults: an individual who is of legal age and who voluntarily consents to adoption can be adopted.
• Homosexual Adoption: refers to the adoption of children by lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders (LGBT).
• Open Adoption: during and after the adoption process, birth families and adoptive families share identifying information. This form is the worst because reduced ability to assimilate the child into a family.

In conclusion, adopting a child can happen at any time, so keeping them in institutions for a long time is unfair. In addition, when couples cannot have children, adoption allows them to create a family then providing children with opportunities makes them feel safer and more protected at home and that is a simple right of their rights. Finally, adoption is one of the most beneficial contributions a person could make to society because you are giving a child a home instead of forcing them to live in an institution for the rest of their lives.

References

1. McLeod, S. (n.d.). Nature vs. nurture in psychology. Retrieved April 06, 2021.
2. Donaldson Adoption Institute. NCAP. (n.d.). https:www.nationalcenteronadoptionandpermanency.netai-research.
3. Immigration, R. and C. C. (2021, July 12). Government of Canada. International adoption – Canada.ca.
4. https:www.canada.caenimmigration-refugees-citizenshipservicescanadiansadopt-child-abroadprocesses.html.
5. What Is Adoption? | Adoption Council of Ontario. Retrieved July 28, 2021, from https:www.adoption.on.cawhat-is-adoption.
6. Learn about the different types of adoption – Steps to Justice. Retrieved July 28, 2021, from https:stepstojustice.castepsfamily-law1-learn-about-different-types-adoption.