Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 10:51:50 +0200

"= Goal Displacement and Dependency in South Korean-United States Intercountry Adoption"

by Sar= ri, Baik, and Bombyk

[Child= ren and Youth Services Review, Vol. 20, Nos. l/2. pp. 87-114. 1998]<= /span>

Adoption in South Korea was nonexistent as a formal legal process prior to the 1950s. Orphaned and abandoned children were traditiona= lly the responsibility of the paternal extended family, or else were reared in institutions operated by various sectarian or public agencies.

Formal adoption practices began in South Korea with its intercou= ntry adoption program. The presidential order of January 20, 1954 sanctioned the establishment of Child Placement Services (Social Welfare Society, 1954) for the purpose of providing intercountry adoption services.<= /tt>

By 1958 South Korea became the largest single contributor to foreign adoptions in the United States and has remained so until the present time. Since intercountry adoption beg= an in 1955 more than 120,000 South Korean children have been placed for adopti= on in foreign countries, 60% of them in the USA. By 1974, the number of South Korean children placed for intercountry adoption in the United States exceeded 5,000 (See Table l), an increase so dramatic that North Korea accused South Korea of marketing babi= es. In response, the South Korean government initiated a plan for the gradual discontinuance of intercountry adoption by increasing the practice of domes= tic adoption. The South Korean government established a goal of reducing the nu= mber of intercountry adoptions by 1,000 annually while concurrently increasing domestic adoptions by 500 annually (“Five Year Plan for Adoption and Foster Care between 1976-1981”). The policy limited the number of licensed intercountry adoption agencies to four and established a quota sys= tem. The quota system was based on the number of children placed for domestic adoption in the previous year and determined the proportion of children an agency could place in the following year for intercountry adoption. No arrangements were made to establish separate domestic adoption agencies wit= h an explicit mandate to foster domestic adoptions. Not surprisingly, the failur= e of the plan was evident by 1980 as reductions quickly reached a plateau. ment submitted its annual report (Ministry of Health and Social Affairs Report on September 15, 1981). This report conceived of a new, more open direction of intercountry adoption which would continue as part of migration expansion a= nd “a good-will ambassador” policy (Ministry of Health and Social Affairs, 1982 National Parliament Hearing, submitted March 8, 1982). Despite highly critical media coverage in both South Korea and the U.S.A., the number of interco= untry adoptions reached 8,837 children in 1985. Although concrete evidence is not available to explain the increases during the 1970s and 1980s it appears th= at goal displacement began early as the agencies sought adoptable children to = meet the growing demand from overseas. In response to the number of children sen= t in 1985, the South Korean Government issued new guidelines on September 30, 19= 89 (Maggi, 1990). The South Korean Government again drafted a new plan with a go= al of reducing the number of intercountry adoptions by 400-600 children annual= ly and placing only racially-mixed or disabled children internationally after = the year 1995. The schedule for reduction of intercountry adoptions is shown in Table 3. Since 1989 the South Korean Government has restricted the placemen= t of abandoned children for overseas adoption and allowed intercountry adoption primarily from relinquishment cases (out-of-wedlock and teenage pregnancies= ), and in special cases, for married birth parent couples. Table 4 shows significant decreases in the actual number of available children in South Korea since 1987. With the exception of a slight increase in 1990 it has remained stable. At the same time decreases in the number of children being consider= ed for intercountry adoption has already bypassed the government goal so it mi= ght be expected that the program will gradually decline to very small numbers. = Nonetheless, in comparing the data on the total numbers of children needing placements (= See Table4) relative to the total number of children placed (See Table 5), there were many more available children who were not adopted. These latter childr= en obviously need to be served by a well-developed child welfare system in South Korea in both the urban and rural areas. As 1995 approached, the Ministry announced plans for a policy reversal in August, 1994. The new policy would continue intercountry adopti= on indefinitely with plans to pass a new Adoption Law that would encourage domestic adoption, but since then the South Korean government has not reduc= ed or redirected its intercountry adoption practices into domestic adoptions.<= o:p> There are many factors which, taken together, help explain why intercountry adoption has continued in South Korea. These factors in= clude continued rapid industrialization, the absence of social programs that would support the needs of families headed by single mothers, the stigma of domes= tic adoptions for South Koreans, population control policies by the South Korean government, the lack of funding for more comprehensive and preventive child welfare services that would reduce the number of available adoptees, and the fact that child abandonment is socially acceptable and legal in South Korea= . The government was reluctant to address the social problems fa= cing single parent families with provisions for appropriate income support and medical, family planning, and social services (Kim, 1986, 1989; Yun & S= uh, 1993). This reluctance reflected societal stigma against out-of-wedlock bir= ths. Where there is discrimination against women who bear children out of wedloc= k, relatively small numbers of unwed women may choose to keep their own childr= en (Ahn, 1986; Huh, 1993). Moreover, this practice was not in conflict with Ko= rean ideology which holds that it is best for a family to “rid” itself of such problems. There is little government financial support, and most of that support is temporary. With this demographic profile, it seems clear that si= ngle mothers are at very high risk for relinquishing or abandoning their childre= n, often thinking that it is in the best interest of the child. A Welfare Act = for Fatherless Families has been proposed in Korea, but to date it has not= been passed (Kim, 1989). The lack of government monies allocated for child welfare serv= ices is another critical factor. The Ministry of Health and Social Affairs recei= ved 4.4% of the total government budget in 1993 and allocated 13.7% of those re= sources for social welfare services. In the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs’ budget the total Family Welfare Bureau’s allocation is 9.7%, and 14.5% of that amount was allocated for Child Welfare. Nearly 90 p= er cent of the child welfare budget is allocated for institutional care that serves only a minority of the children who are at risk for relinquishment or abandonment. The South Korean Government has primarily relied on three meth= ods to address the problems of children in need of care: adoption, institutiona= lization, and a program which began in the late 1980s called the Child Headed Family Program (Moon, 1993, pp. 109-135). Perhaps the North Koreans’ accusation that South Korean adoption practices treat children like chattel is not without some basis in fact, because there has been so little effort to develop domestic child wel= fare programs for children who are poor, of single parent families, or who are at risk for placement because of abuse, neglect, or physical disability (Ahn, 1986; Byun, 1989; Kim, 1986, 1989). Greater effort has been shown by the government toward facilitating intercountry adoption policy than in providi= ng services and resources to these at-risk children. The well-organized US South Korean intercountry adoption system practically guarantees that a child will meet the necessary United States Immigration requirements. Moreover, the South Korean procedure satisfies th= e United States constitutional mandate of due process. Since the Korean adoption system is = so well established, adoptive parents are confident their baby will be accepte= d by immigration and that the processing period will be short.= The perceived “success” of the intercountry adopti= on program has clearly exacerbated several critical child welfare issues for <= st1:country-region w:st=3D"on">South Korea. Because of the intercountry adoption outlet, there was no pressure on the governmen= t to establish child welfare programs whereby children at risk could remain with their parents and receive assistance. Moreover, there was little or no effo= rt by the government or voluntary organizations to support parents of children= at risk for relinquishment. Too often, the blame is on unwed mothers as the ca= use for continuation of intercountry adoption, and yet increases in the actual number of unwed mothers in recent years have not been reported (Ahn, 1986; = Huh, 1993). There is no formal policy about the rights and responsibilities of S= outh Korean fathers in cases where he and the mother are not married. Even the rapidly growing demand for social services for children and families seems = not to have influenced government actions to date. Recommendations Sarri, Baik, and Bombyk<= /tt> Obviously, phasing out the intercountry adoption program will = not be possible with only the single strategy of replacing intercountry adoptio= n. numbers with intracountry adoptions, as apparently is expected by the Korean Government. For the policy makers in South Korea, intercountry adoption ser= ves the multiple purposes of finding a home for needy children, decreasing the population of children in need, and has economic advantages. The economic advantages result primarily from the savings achieved by not having to deve= lop a comprehensive child welfare system, as well as an adequate income support program for poor and single parent families. Child welfare policy to date i= n South Korea has been more of a “qui= ck fix” solution than any seriously considered social issue. Social poli= cy makers in South Kore= a are unlikely to be able to continue to treat poor children and their parent= s as commodities or ignore their existence and problems. Both external and inter= nal pressures are being placed on the government to demonstrate that all childr= en are valued as equal human beings entitled to basic human rights (Sullivan, 1993; VanLoon, 1990). Having the extensive intercountry adoption program as= a solution to South Ko= rea’s problem of needy children diverted the government’s sense of responsibility for the care of their children. The need to provide social services for the poor families, single parent families and children are gro= wing and are unattended through lack of responsibility, spending and involvement (Kim, 1986 & 1989; Kwan, 1987). In caring for these children South Korea needs to make a commitment to prevent unwanted pregnancies and family fragmentation whenever possible and provide a standard of care that meets international child welfare standards. Based upon our understanding of the clients’ needs and problems the mothers, fathers, children, and others who form the child welf= are system’s “inputs,” we propose the following policy alternatives (Besharov & Baehler, 1992, p. 2). First, the quality of ca= re and services provided for the child and family must be comprehensive to meet the standard of the child’s well being and promote the well being of = the family. The government must address the needs of families in crisis and dev= elop services for the prevention of family dissolution or neglect. Particular attention needs to be directe= d to the plight of abandoned, special needs children and to females who are at d= isproportionate risk. Second, the policy established by the South Korean Government for its children in need of services must be congruent with the social values and culture of its people. Since 1961, the Korean Government has directed some efforts to increase the domestic adoption numbers, but those efforts will n= eed to be more comprehensive and continuing than they have been up to the 1990s. Adoption goes beyond the economic issue and is a matter of social value in = Korea. = Yet, no attempts have been made to bring about changes in values and acceptance of non-related children as Korean by raising the public’s consciousness.= By ignoring the important value held by the Koreans for blood ties, the effort= s to increase numbers in non-relative adoption can only be limited. The Ministry= of Health and Social Affairs must take a lead in placing the issue of incountry adoption on the public agenda to insure an active and continuous promotion = in public knowledge. Third, alternative methods of proper care and provision of inc= ome assistance to the custodial biological parent (mother or father) with enough money to care for the child must be implemented. The necessary first step is careful evaluation research about the institutional and other types of care provided for the children followed by comparative studies of the outcomes. = The policy of allowing the oldest sibling in a parentless household to serve as head of the family deserves careful assessment in terms of the outcomes for all members of the family. Fourth, in order to properly provide the necessary services to the children= and family in need of services the Ministry of Health and Social Affairs needs = to secure an adequate budget for domestic child welfare programs. The Ministry’s responsibility is not just in the rise and fall of the num= bers of needy children placed for adoption, but rather, to protect the welfare of all children in need of resources and services. Services should include fam= ily planning and contraceptive education for adolescents, both males and female= s so that teenage pregnancy can be reduced. Kore= a also = needs to address its policies and programs. A critical issue arises when an economically developed nation with the resources to provide domestic child welfare programs and services continues to operate under long-term dependen= cy on intercountry adoption programs as a major policy solution. If all childr= en in a country are to be aided by appropriate child welfare policies, the les= son to be learned from South Korea’s experience is that a nation must dev= elop its own domestic family and child welfare policies and programs and should = not rely on intercountry adoption as a viable solution for children in need. References Ahn, Soon-Duck. (1986). A study of the unwed mother. WomenR= 17;s Studies Forum. Seoul: Korean Women’s Development Institute, 5 l-9 1.= Alstein, H. & Simon, R. (1991). Intercountry Adoption: a multinational perspective. Ne= w York: Praeger. Baer, I. (1993). Adoptees s= earch for their origins: a new development seen from an international standpoint.= In J. Eekelaar and P. Sarcevic (Eds.). Parenthood in modern society: legal and social issues for the twenty-first century. Boston: M. Nijhoff Publishers, 241-250.= Balanon, L.C. (1989). Foreign adoption in the Philippines: issues and opportunities, Child Welfare, 68, 241-253. Barth, R. & Berry, M. (1988). Adoption and disruption: Rat= es, risks and responses. New York= : Aldine de Gruyter. Benet, M.K. (1988). The politics of adoption. New York: Free Press of Macmillan. Besharov, D. & Baehler, K. (1992). Demonstration and evaluation strategies. Children and Youth Services Review, 14, 2-18. Bin Hussain, M. (1990). Inter-country adoption - Malaysia. In Pacific East Asia Social Service (PEASS) Inter-country migration and inter-country adoption proceedings. July 18-23, 183-193. Bremner, R. (Ed.) (1970). Children and youth in America= : a documentary history. Vols. Z-Ill Cambridge= : Harvard University Press. Brodzinsky, M., Schecter, M.D. & Hong, R.M. (1992). Being adopted: the lifelong search for self New York: Doubleday. 112 Sarri, Baik, and Bombyk Byun, Hwa-Soon. (1989). The child = care and environment in the low income areas. Women’s Studies Forum. Seoul: Korean Women’s Development Institute, 75111. Chui, A.W.M. (1990). Inter-country adoption in Hong Kong. In Pacific East Asia Social Services Inter-country migra= tion and inter-country proceedings, 162-165. Divirgilio, L. (1956). Adjustment of foreign children in their adoptive homes. Child Welfare. November, 15-2 1. Euro-Korean League. (1996). Newsletter. Seoul, Korea, 110-619 P.O. Box1964. Feigelman, W.&r Silverman, A.R. (1983). Chosen children. <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">New Brunswick, NJ: The Scarecrow Press. Hasenfeld, Y. (1992). Human services as complex organizations.= New York:Haworth= . Hessle, S. (1996). What factors should be considered in intern= ational comparisons in child welfare? Unpublished paper. Department of Social Work,= Stockholm University= , S 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden. Huh, N.S. (1993). Services for out-of-wedlock children in Korea. Early Child Development and Care, 85, 35-46. International Council on Social Welfare. (1996). Preliminary guidelines on intracountry and intercountry adoption and foster care. Conference Proceedings. Hong Kong, Augus= t. Joe, B. (1978). In defense of inter-country adoption. Social Service Review. 51:1, 1-9 and 36. Kim. E. (1992). Reformed family law and movement for reforming family law. Korean Women’s Studies Forum, 8,28-56.<= /tt> Kim, D.S. (1977). How they fared in American homes: A follow-up study of adopted Korean children. Children Today, 6, 2-6 and 36.= Kim, H.T. & Reid, E. (1975). After a long journey. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, School of Social Wo= rk, M.S.W. Thesis. Kim, J.Y. (1996). Girls becoming rarer in South Korea. Ann Arbor News, July 11. Kim, Jung-Ja. (1989). The fatherless families in the low-income group. Korean Women’s Studies Forum. Seoul: Korean Women’s Development Institute, 39-75. Kim, Jung-Ja. (1986). A study of the support system for single-parent families. Women’s Studies Forum. = Seoul: Korean Women’s Development Institute, 5-5 1. Kong, S.K. (1993). Family changes and family politics in the <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Republic of Korea. Seoul: Korea Institute of Health and So= cial Affairs. Korean Child & Women Section. (1976). Report: Five years p= lan for adoption and foster care between 1976-1981. Seoul: The Ministry of Health & Soc= ial Affairs. Intercountry Adoption 113 Korean Institute for Health and Social Affairs. (1991). Thirty years of population policy. Se= oul, Korea. Korean Ministry of Health and Social Affairs. (1993a). 1993 An= nual Overview. Seoul, Korea.= Korean Ministry of Health and Social Affairs. (1993b). Yearboo= k of Health and Social Statistics, 1981-1993. Seoul, Korea. Korean Orphan Adoption Law. (1961, amended 1966 and 1976). Seoul: Korean Ministry of Health and Soci= al Affairs. Kwan, Young-Ja. (1987). Korean families and women’s welf= are. Women’s Studies Forum. S= eoul: Korean Women’s Development Institute, 179-212. Louie, E. (1995). Americans go around the world to adopt orpha= ns from China. Ann Arbor News. June 4, Dl and D2. Lydens, L. (1988). A longitudinal study of cross-cultural adop= tion identity and development among. Asian adoptees at adolescence and early adulthood. Ph.D. Dissertation. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University= . Maggi, L. (1990). Korea closes its doors. Ours. (January-February), 48-49. Marrison, B. (1995). Orphans at risk: Thousands of Chinese children are abandoned. Ann Ar= bor News. June 4, Dl. Moon, S. H. (1993). Youth-headed families: their problems and countermeasures. Seoul: Journal of Korean Society for Child Welfare. No 1,109- 135. Mantra, W. (1990). An update on child welfare in the Philippines. In Pacific and East Asia Social Service. Inter-country migration and inter-country adoption. Conference proceedings.= Tokyo, 197-199. Park, I. S. (1993). A study= on search of Korean young adult adopted persons in U.S.A. Ph.D. Dissertation, = Ewha Woman’s University, Seou= l. Pelton, L. (1988). The institution of adoption: its courses and perpetuation. In D. Valentine (Ed.) . Infertility>, and adoption: A guide for social work practice, (pp. 81 -I 17). New York: Haworth Press. Perlez, J. (1996). “Romanian ‘orphans’: Prisoners of their cribs.” New York Times. March. 25, Al and A5.= Peterson, V. (1990). Raising Japanese children in America. In Pacific and East Asia social service. Inter-country migration and inter-country adoption. Conference proceedings, 134-142. Pilloti, F. (1985). “Intercountry adoption: a view from = Latin America,” Child Welfare, 64,25-35.= Schema, D.J. (1996) “Adoptions in Paraguay: Mothers cry theft,&= #8221; New York Times. March 16, Al and A6. Simon R. & Alstein, H. (1996). “The case for transra= cial adoption,” Children and Youth Services Review, 18.5-22. Simon, R.J. & Alstein, H. (1981). Transracial adoption: a follow-up. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books. Simon, R.J. & Alstein. H. (1987). Transracial adoptees and their families: a study of identity and commitment. = New York: Praeger. Smith, G. (1979). Social work and the sociology of organizatio= ns. Rev. 2nd Edition. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Social Welfare Society. (1954). Annual Report. Seoul, Korea Sorosky, B. (1984). The Adoption Triangle. NY: Doubleday.= Sullivan, A. (1993). The Hague Convention on intercountry adoption, Children’s Voices. Fall, 25-26. The Ministry of Health and Social Affairs. (1988). Report to t= he National Parliament. Seoul, Korea. Trattner, W. (1974). From poor law to welfare state. New York: Free P= ress. Triselotis, J. (1973). In search of origins: the experience of adopted people. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Utaryo, C. (1990). Inter-country adoption as a social welfare alternative to institutionalization., In Pacific and East Asia Social Servi= ce conference proceedings, 169-176. Valenzons, R.L. (1990). Inter-country adoption: Malaysia. Pacific and East Asia Social Service Inter-country migration and adoption c= onference proceedings. Tokyo<= /st1:place>, 194-l 97. Valk, M.A. (1957). Korean-American children in American adopti= ve homes. NY: Child Welfare League of America. Van Loon, J.H.A. (1990). Report on intercountry adoption. In Proceedings of the Hague conference on private international law. The Hague. Verhulst, F.C., Althaus, M. & Verslius, D.B.H. (1990). Pro= blem behavior in international adoptees: an epidemiological study. Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 29,94-l 11. Weil, R.H. (1990). International adoption: The quiet migration. International Migration Review. 18:2, 276. Westhues, A. 8z Cohen, J. (1996). Intercountry adoption in Canada:= How have they fared at adolescence? Paper presented at the Joint World Congress= of the International Associations of Schools of Social Work, Hong Kong, July 24-27. Won, Y .H. (1990). A study on Korean Adoption Policy. Seoul: Ehwa Womans University. Yi, B.K. (1993). Present conditions and counter measures of ch= ild welfare institutions. Journal of the Korean Society of Child Welfare, I, 46= -57. Yun, Y. & Suh, M. (1995). Cost sharing methods for materni= ty leave and child- rearing provisions for working women. Korean Women’s Studies Forum, 11, 143-163.