Loosening The Law Restrictions in Adoption Sphere Essay Example

Since 2004, the rate of international adoption has dropped drastically. Adoption agencies, see firsthand the life-altering impacts due to the decline. The implementation of laws by different governments forced agencies to make hopeful parents "jump through more red tape". Parents have to fill out more paperwork. Getting different documentation takes longer, which only increases the already expensive process. The “tape” was instituted after multiple deaths of international adoptees from abuse or neglect by their adoptive parents. We as a society have failed these children, and now must put the needs of these adoptees first. The decline in international adoption is not a simple fix, but we can start by pressuring the government to loosen some of the restrictions. Loosening the restrictions doesn't mean disbanding all of them, but laws need to be revised. 

Revision and the disbanding of certain restrictions is the way to combat the declining rate of international adoption. The imposition of laws by governments, due to multiple international adoptees deaths, is only a hinderance to the agencies who work to place adoptees in loving homes. For this reason, adoption agencies that first publicly speak out against such laws. From there, public sentiment will grow in favor of the revision and disbandment of these damaging restrictions. One of them being the Dima Yakovlev law. Which doesn’t allow US citizens from adopting Russian children. Tangible change can only be carried out by the Russian government, but they won’t without pressure from the public. Public pressure can be created through protests (Russian Foreign Ministry, page 1). These marches can’t be executed to the fullest extent without having an organization unify them (Press, page 1). That’s why having the top adoption agencies, like Holt International, Alliance for Children, and Adoptions Together, speak out is vital for success. Their social power is respected enough to unite the public to force the government into creating change. To put it very simply, society has to withdraw politics and individual’s political agendas out of adoption, and it starts by revising and removing certain overbearing laws like the Dima Yakovlev law. 

The overbearing bureaucracy has always been intertwined with adoption. Once laws, like the Dima Yakovlev Law, which doesn’t allow US citizens from adopting Russian children, was established the negative impact was too great for people to “look the other way. One adoptive father described his process with international adoption as being out of step with the general public’s views. He continued on to say that the bureaucracy and public policy was nothing more than a barrier for more children to be adopted (Metzgar, Paragraph 32-33). When public policy acts like a barrier the only thing that is accomplished is a longer adoption process. International adoption is already expensive enough, but drawing out the process even more means more money. Maybe ten years ago these laws resulted in positive change, but now they no longer serve their purpose. If the decline in international adoption is caused by these laws, that were created with ulterior motives, then the solution is to amend or dissolve such restrictions. For example, the Dima Yakovlev law is a response to the US Magnitsky Act to punish corrupt Russian officials (The Dima Yakovlev Law, paragraph 2). Unlike other solutions, changing the laws can create immediate change. The fact is having a solution that takes longer to cause change will only result in more negative impacts. Some of these will be more children in orphanages, which in turns causes worse living conditions, less money for each child from the government, and more time that the kids are being used as a political pawn. 

Objections against the revision and disbandment of certain laws are stated. For instance, one that adoption agencies could have is that without these laws more children would have been placed in abusive or neglectful homes. The thought process is that even though these laws aren’t perfect that have accomplished what they were created for. The question is then, do they still accomplish what they were created for, and are they doing more harm than good years later? Something that works ten years ago may not work today. A law’s effectiveness, especially ones that decide a person’s life, should be continually challenged with the goal of becoming perfect. A child’s life trajectory is solely dependent on these laws. Individuals that create these laws should strive for nothing but perfection because children’s lives are what's at stake. Outdated laws need to be fix, whether it just be amended or totally disbanded. As time continues on, and society’s values change, the laws should reflect current views, not the one’s from a decade ago. 

Another objection that adoption agencies may argue involves the ramifications that speaking out against the government may cause. It is the Russian government that funds the orphanages that the adoptees live in. It is also the government that funds their clothing, food, and medical care. The fear is that speaking out will cause the government to pull or lessen funding to the orphanages. International adoption, especially in Russia, is known to be infected with corruption. When agencies speak out, it damages the perception of the Russian government. Pulling funding would create a negative public perception that the government wouldn’t be willing to risk. Not only does it support the claim that the government is corrupt, but it would paint them as people who put preserving their image above the needs of innocent and helpless children. The individuals in government are selfish enough to know that pulling funding would result in political suicide. 

The final objection that adoption agencies could argue involves backlash from speaking out so late. People would question why didn’t agencies take a stand years ago when laws, like the Dima Yakovlev Law, was put into place? Adoption agencies need to understand that backlash is going to happen, but it shouldn’t stop them from doing what's right by the kids. Agencies should they have spoken out when the laws were established. What’s worse than speaking out after the fact or late, is that to never speak out at all. Additionally, in the grand scheme of things, the public won’t focus long about agencies speaking out late. Solving the decline in international adoption is more important than ridiculing the agencies that took years to speak out against such laws. Now, as such objections have been made, there have also been other solutions proposed to solve the decline in international adoption. 

Opposition to revising and removing certain laws, will argue that to solve the declining rate of international adoption is to root out corruption. There are two major issues with this solution. First, to root out corruption in international adoption sadly isn’t plausible (Riben, page 1). It would mean having thousands of investigations that span across the entire globe. Furthermore, how would one know when corruption has been fully removed? The fact is that there will always be people trying to cheat the system because it's easier than trying to “cut through all the red tape” put in place by different countries. The second problem with trying to get rid of the corruption is that positive impacts wouldn’t happen until decades, if that, later. It’s nothing more than a long-term solution. As a society we have failed adoptees for too long. They will continue to suffer as long as these overbearing laws are still in place. An immediate solution is needed, and revising and disbanding certain laws will solve the declining rate of international adoption. 

All in all, a solution to the decline in international adoption must be found. Revising and getting rid of some of the overbearing laws can be the solution. One of the many benefits, of revising and disbanding certain restrictions would have, is that it can be put in place quickly and result in immediate change. Without it, children will continue to suffer, continue to live in orphanages, continue to feel unwanted and unloved. Not implementing will only cause the decline in international adoption to increase. At the end of the day, these children not only need but deserve someone to fight for their interests, and protect them against the ones that try and use them as political pawns.