Irish adoptive parents are proud of their children’s heritage and culture - poor or not
However, the conclusions drawn by Ms McElhinney on inter-country adoptions in general are inaccurate, misleading and extremely hurtful to a great number of ordinary Irish people who have undertaken a very arduous process and who now have happy adoptions and family lives.
The assertion is made throughout the article that the unfortunate case of Tristan Dowse is an example of failure in the inter-country adoption process. The truth is this was a domestic adoption completely under the control of the Indonesian government and there is no comparison with Irish inter-country adoption.
The suggestion that adoptive parents “take the children of poor families” is inaccurate and inflammatory. The health boards, Irish Adoption Board and the governments of the host countries go to great lengths to ensure the best interest of the child is always paramount. It is recognised by all that the best place for any child is with its biological parents. It is only when this clearly cannot happen that a child is considered for adoption.
It is true that the countries that facilitate inter-country adoption are very often extremely impoverished. It is also true that the political and social systems in a few of these countries may not be the most wholesome, but to say they are the “who’s who of the most corrupt regimes on the planet” is not true. These are the home countries of many of our children and we are very proud of their heritage and culture.
The flippant remark that “middle-class Irish people adopt babies from across the world” is deeply offensive to the many Irish people from all walks of life who have adopted children from these countries.
The assessment process for adoption involves completion of a parenting course as well as an extensive verbal, written and medical assessment. The typical waiting and assessment process takes three to five years, so it is clearly not something that people could enter into lightly.
Ms McElhinney’s claim that these countries actively try to get children into institutions so they can be put up for adoption is farcical. Sadly, the truth is that very many of these institutions are already so overcrowded that the very last thing they want or need is more children.
With regard to her conclusions on the drop in the rate of children being abandoned in Romania, of course a mother is less likely to abandon a child to an orphanage if that institution is already so overcrowded that she would be condemning her child to a very uncertain future.
When Ms McElhinney says “the trade in Chinese children brings highly prized dollars,” she again displays her ignorance of the facts.
The cost of adopting from China (apart from a few hundred dollars in administration) is small and is in the form of a donation paid directly from the adopting family to the orphanage. It is intended to make some contribution to the upkeep of the adopted child during the first year or so while the child was in their care.
It is untrue to suggest that if there were no inter-country adoptions, there would not be children in dire need of it.
We realise that Ms McElhinney may be taking some poetic licence in order to write an interesting story and also to gain publicity for her upcoming book. This, however, does not justify writing an article that is not factually correct or does not draw proper conclusions.
Liam O’Riordan
Inter-Country Adoption Association
c/o Post Office
Carrigaline
Co Cork
