Are UNICEF and the Red Cross anti-adoption?

Question

I just read Unicef's position on inter-country adoption. Their position echos one that many adult adoptees propose.

"The Convention on the Rights of the Child, which guides UNICEF’s work clearly states that every child has the right to know and be cared for by his or her own parents, whenever possible. Recognising this, and the value and importance of families in children’s lives, UNICEF believes that families needing support to care for their children should receive it, and that alternative means of caring for a child should only be considered when, despite this assistance, a child’s family is unavailable, unable or unwilling to care for him or her. For children who cannot be raised by their own families, an appropriate alternative family environment should be sought in preference to institutional care which should be used only as a last resort and as a temporary measure."

http://www.unicef.org/media/media_41918.html

What do you make of this?

Answer 1

Of course they're not anti-adoption.  They're great believers in adoption only as a last resort, when biological parents or family are "unavailable, unable or unwilling to care for him or her".  Those are the words of a body who view adoption as it should be.

"Get a makeover before homestudy", or "you'll get over losing your (adopted) child" are the words of somebody who doesn't even understand basic human feelings.

Answer 2

just in case anyone accuses Sunny of making this up. I did check out the website and it she directly qutoes from one of the paragraphs on the website. Here is addtional proof

"Over the past 30 years, the number of families from wealthy countries wanting to adopt children from other countries has grown substantially. At the same time, lack of regulation and oversight, particularly in the countries of origin, coupled with the potential for financial gain, has spurred the growth of an industry around adoption, where profit, rather than the best interests of children, takes centre stage.  Abuses include the sale and abduction of children, coercion of parents, and bribery." This is just one of many paragraphs on the website.

**************************************... note I'm not anti-adoption, but I have seen when people list websites they are accused of making things up. In this case Sunny's quote is coming directly from the UNICEF website. So, please go and check out the website, it was very eye-opening for me to have an organzation to take such a stance. Then if you disagree just say you disagree, but don't name call her or accuse her of making it up.

Thanks

Answer 3

[font=sarcasm]Obviously they are just bitter and had bad experiences and blame all their problems on adoption...Maybe they should get counseling [/sarcasm]

Answer 4

Wow. It looks very much like they are anti adoption to some degree. Possibly more anti international adoption than anti domestic since they tend to deal more with impoverished nations. I love that they see alternates to family as being a temporary or last resort only.

Perhaps the world should be governed by UNICEF.

Answer 5

They just care about the rights of kids

Thank goodness for Unicef and the Red Cross and organizations who genuinely help people rather than take advantage of them

Answer 6

BRAVO UNICEF BRAVO!!!

Answer 7

I am not anti-adoption (far from it, I recognize the need for adoption).  However...this is (what unicef believes) pretty much what I believe.  A child (unless abused or abandoned) should stay with their biological family (parents first, relatives second), if this is not possible then a child should be adopted within his/her country of origin (this is third) by people of his/her race, if this is not possible a child should be adopted within his/her country of origin (fourth) by people not of his/her race (though this is usually not a likely scenario, unless they are living in the US or Canada).  If a child cannot be adopted in his/her country of origin, then it should be adopted outside of its country by people of his/her race (fifth) and if that is not possible, he/she should be adopted outside of his/her country of origin by people not of his/her race (sixth).

This, again, isn't a popular opinion in adoption, but we need to ALWAYS place the needs of the child over our needs to be parents.  It is in the best interest of the child to follow what I mentioned about, BUT, it isn't always possible to do that, unfortunately.

Adoption is such a complicated thing, I believe strongly that adoption CAN be ethical, it just needs to start with the adoptive parents.  As long as people keep putting their need to be parents above everything else, well...adoption will not be ethical.  There can be people who make sure that they are going about it ethically, but until every adoption is ethical, the system is going to continue to get more and more corrupt.  

I do not believe it is in the best interest of an adopted child to take them away from their family, their country, but it sometimes has to be done.  I do not believe that going into adoption with a "heart" to "save" orphans is also not in the best interest of the child.  There is no clear cut answer in this, and it will always be debated.  Adoption can be a wonderful thing.