The issue of international adoption is one that arouses strong feelings in many people. Some support it as a case of the fortunate reaching out in love to the less fortunate, while others are upset to see would-be parents pass over foster children in their own cities for the “trendiness” of adopting a third-world child. The debate rages on every time a high-profile celebrity makes the decision to adopt a child from a struggling nation (i.e. Madonna, Angelina Jolie, etc), and it has come up again in the aftermath of the earthquake in Haiti. The urge to adopt “Haitian orphan babies” has rapidly become a trend in the past weeks, as observed on blogs such as Racialicious, Jezebel, and Shakesville. But are the motivations at play here really so charitable?

On the surface, they look pure—it is natural to want to help the less fortunate, especially children. However, when you dig deeper into the situation, an ugly side is unearthed: many of these Haitian “orphans” still have living parents—in a developing nation, it is not uncommon for children to be left in an orphanage while the parents attempt to earn money to support them—and almost all of them have living extended family. Adoption in such cases is a tricky legal situation, as seen in the Madonna-Malawi debacle. There are arguments to be made for both sides, but it is difficult to say that blood relatives should not have a say in what happens to a child—unless, of course, there is an abusive situation involved.

In addition, many would raise the question of whether people who have only just decided, after a tragedy, that they want to adopt these very specific children should be encouraged to take on the responsibility of raising them. A particularly disturbing case has come to light in the past few days. Ten missionary members of Idaho’s Central Valley Baptist Church flew to Haiti with the intention of gathering Haitian orphans and transporting them to the Dominican Republic. Their plans were ill-formed and bordered on child trafficking, and the group did not even take the time to work with groups that were already mobilized to help children in Haiti. Several of the children were not orphans but were in fact taken from parents who believed that they would be educated and taken care of and—this being the important part—returned someday.

Nobody wants to address this issue, but it is clear what is at play here. There is a persistent myth of the great white savior descending into third-world countries and providing better lives for its children. I am not attempting to downplay the kindness of the many adoptive parents who really have provided wonderful homes for their children and who have gone through the process legally and examined their motivations thoroughly. However, the case of the missionaries is a different kind of situation. This is an example of an attempt to swoop in and remove children from their native land, without any concern for the law—assuming that they can perform the task of raising the children better. They did not appear to have any plans as to what to do once the children were in the Dominican Republic—but it was obvious at least that they would be better off there.

International and transracial adoption can be a great thing. It can bring communities together and create wonderful, loving families. However, motivation matters the most. Happy families with healthy parent-child relationships must grow from a true desire to have a child and create a family, not to do the trendy new thing or “save” a disadvantaged child. Americans need to avoid the myth of the white man’s burden, especially in situations such as these. There are solutions that do not involve transporting all third-world children to our families for “better” care. We must discover these possible solutions.

Related posts:

1. NGO conundrum in Haiti
2. Aid in Haiti increases in a time of desperation
3. Hoops for Haiti
4. Local orgs raise funds for Haiti
5. Migration scholar addresses ethical issues in American policy