Here are some current statistics on international adoption in Canada, as reported by a Sept. 7 post in the Peterborough Examiner. Funny how the title and general slant of the article make this sound like a bad thing. Decide for yourself. Is the reporter happy to report that due to improved conditions, certain countries with a previously long history of inter-country adoption are now following the mandates of the Hague Convention (1993) by serving the best interests of the child, which are: 1) to stay with its biological family; 2) when that not possible, to be adopted domestically; 3) or, as a last resort, be adopted internationally? Or, can the article be read more as evidence of how the chain of supply and demand is breaking down, forcing people looking to adopt internationally to go farther a-field?
We at CKAN do not like to enter into debate over the adoption issue, seeing it as a complex topic that goes beyond a blog post, and not merely something black or white. But...articles that present international adoption as a numbers game, as an issue of supply and demand, don't do justice to all involved in the adoption community. Articles like this need to be addressed for their narrow scope and representation of adopting countries as baby-hungry nations. We would be happy to hear any of your comments.