Transnational influences in the social production of adoptable children

Abstract

Purpose -To consider transnational aspects linked to the social production of adoptable children in a Brazilian setting. Design/methodology/approach -Looks at legislation and media reports, giving particular attention to how, during the 1990s, vigorous campaigns in favor of plenary adoption by Brazilian nationals implied the near-total silencing of alternative forms of childcare such as foster care, and how recent circumstances are reversing this trend. Findings -Argues that an apparently straightforward conflict between poverty-stricken families and the state authorities that strip them of parental rights is in fact a highly political issue involving innumerous overseas as well as national influences. National childcare policies that encourage certain childcare options and eliminate others emerge as much from scandals in the media, "consumer demands" by adoptive parents, and philanthropic support as from the more apparent global trends in child welfare legislation.Research limitations/implications -The findings challenge the view that childcare is a consensual issue with all fronts working for the "child's best interest". Rather, in this paper, the issue is revealed as a political matter of conflicting interests between unequal categories of caretakers. Practical implications -This paper has direct relevance for international legislation on child adoption policy. Originality/value -This paper furnishes a "view from below" on international adoption, putting in question principles that are normally accepted as obvious in international legislation on child rights.

Introduction: Cultural and Political Economies of Adoption in Latin America

“…Since the 1990s, the majority of adopted children in developed countries have come from “elsewhere” (Fonseca 2006:154), drawing our attention to the cultural and political economies undergirding such transnational shifts of caregiving. Several anthropologists have documented the state's interest in policies on fertility, child tax credits and the like as central to the reproduction of the body politic and integral to questions of governmentality (e.g., Rugh 1981; Kligman 1992; Das 1995; Ginsburg and Rapp 1995; Greenhalgh 1995; Kligman 1995; Kahn 2000; Fonseca 2002; Inhorn 2003).…”

“…Ecuador ratified the CRC in 1990, and its 1992 adoption law was part of a larger transformation in child welfare (Leifsen, this issue). Brazil enacted a new Children's Code in 1990, and its judiciary took over child welfare policy, promoting in‐country adoption but also, significantly, being much more cautious in processing children's abandonment decrees, resulting in a shrinking supply of adoptable children (Fonseca 2006:162–3). Spurred by tensions and concerns that had been building for some time, and further cemented by revisions to legislation, intercountry adoptions significantly decreased in much of Latin America during this period (see, e.g., Cardarello, this issue, for Brazil; Leifsen, this issue, for Ecuador; Leinaweaver 2008 for Peru).…”

“…Even as transnational adoptions were decreasing in number in the 1990s, “national childcare policies underwent considerable influence from abroad which, favoring the perspective of adoptive parents, presented plenary adoption as the obvious solution for children who, for one reason or another, could not stay with their biological parents” (Fonseca 2006:167; but see Villalta 2006b on the unstated factors leading to plenary adoption). Local solutions were at best ignored, at worst criticized as akin to child labor or trafficking (Leinaweaver 2008).…”

The State and Children's Fate

“…However, we should not forget that, by now, the young girl had been through the pedagogical influences of diverse modern therapies, imposing new filters on the experiences she was living. Furthermore, her internment coincides with a worldwide rejection of institutionalizing children (Fonseca, 2006). And, while this policy no doubt has wellfounded implications (urging governments to invest in bettering the living conditions of poor families rather than institutionalizing their children), one cannot help but remember the lessons reaped from other articles in this issue.…”

Choosing to Move

“…While in recent times institutionalization has been criticized in Peru, and elsewhere in Latin America (Fonseca, 2006), by globalization of the institution I refer to the long history of orphanages in Latin America, founded in many cases by Europeans, and the debates and dialogues about their suitability as homes for minors. 16.…”