Abstract
The illegal removal of children from biological family life during conflict has a longstanding history. Briefly overviewed are the Vietnam Babylift and a more recent child abduction attempt in Chad. Then, turning to the history of child abduction and adoption history in Latin America, the conflicts of El Salvador and Argentina are presented and ‘living disappeared’ children – those who disappear into adoption networks during war – are discussed. The post-conflict social realities in both nations are explored. The role of the social worker and specific practices are identified and discussed in context of generalist social work practice.
Contemporary intercountry adoption (ICA) as a practice dates back to the Second World War and the Korean War (Selman, 2009, 2012). Since that time, approximately a million intercountry adoptees have joined families, mainly in Western Europe, the United States of America, and Canada (Selman, 2009, 2012). While there have been many ethical adoptions, the history is complicated with ethical practice dilemmas and discourse about strategies for reform. For example, reform concerns related to Romania, including issues of empowerment and systems changes are discussed by Dickens and Groza (2004). Family adjustment and adaptation to adoption has been explored as well as policy and social intervention topics (Rotabi and Bunkers, 2011). Then, there is a theme of concern for the exploitation of poor families and birth mothers and this sensitive issue has received considerable attention from social work scholars (e.g. see Bergquist, 2009; Bromfield and Rotabi, 2012; Dickens, 2009; Freundlich, 2000; Fronek and Cuthbert, 2012a, 2012b; Gibbons and Rotabi, 2012; Herrmann and Kasper, 1992; Hollingsworth, 2003; Roby, 2007; Roby and Ife, 2009; Roby and Maskew, 2012; Roby and Matasumura, 2002; Rotabi and Bunkers, 2012; Rotabi and Gibbons, 2012).
Fronek and Cuthbert (2012b) call for a change of paradigm related to intervening with orphaned and vulnerable children and their birth families and Roby (2007) proposes a human rights continuum before, during, and after adoption. These are critically important recommendations as there have been charges of child sales and abduction in a number of countries that include Cambodia, Vietnam, Ethiopia and unresolved cases in Guatemala are still a point of discussion in popular press today (Gibbons and Rotabi, 2012; Smolin, 2004, 2006, 2008; Rotabi, 2012a, 2012b).
The history of unethical adoption practices in conflict and post-conflict contexts is important to review to learn from lessons of the past. This article presents a short history of child removal for adoption in conflict environments, focusing on the post-conflict experiences in El Salvador and Argentina. It is important to note that while problematic and unethical adoption practices have been identified in Latin America, especially in conflict environments (see Dubinsky, 2010), there is a lack of refereed articles focused on ICA in the region. This article will help to fill that gap while considering the social work generalist practice framework.
A brief history of social work and adoption interventions during conflict and chaos
The Vietnam Babylift, taking place during the fall of Saigon (1975), is estimated to have removed approximately 3000 children as a result of 30 airlifts funded by the USA and executed with military and civilian aircraft (United States Agency for International Development [US AID], 1975). Social workers Joe (1978) and Ryan (1983) were both involved in the Babylift and they wrote about the resulting controversy – including outrage both in the general public as well as among child welfare leaders and noted scholars (Adoption History Project, 2007; Bergquist, 2009, 2012). Fundamentally, there was a disagreement about removing children from their communities and culture – some arguing that the children were spared from death while one group of academic and religious leaders asserted that the child removal was immoral (Juergensmeyer et al., 1975). Among other things, a class action lawsuit (Nguyen Da Yen et al. v. Kissinger), was filed in the USA on the grounds of unconstitutional detainment of the children and while that suit was dismissed, other lawsuits were initiated by family members of the ‘rescued’ children (Adoption History Project, 2012; Bergquist, 2009, 2012; US AID, 1975). Of course, this challenges the notion of child rescue in the context of chaos where it is difficult to ascertain if the child has an intact family, or not. Unfortunately, other evacuation incidents in recent history have resulted in legal proceedings, including charges of child abduction.
For example, in 2007 another airlift attempt was made on the Chad–Sudan border area of the conflict in Darfur. L’Arché de Zoe [Zoe’s Ark], a group based in France, claimed to be engaged in humanitarian rescue of children impacted by the conflict in Sudan. In reality the organization was illegitimate in its actions. According to press reports, birth families were deceived and healthy children were even bandaged with gauze to make them appear in need of emergency medical attention (Bergquist, 2009, 2012; Mezmur, 2009). However, Zoe’s Ark planned a child foster care-to-adoption scheme with family ‘hosting’ during child asylum proceedings. The group was originally incarcerated in Chad and they were sentenced to eight years of hard labor and nine million USD in damages (it should be noted that the crime took place in Chad and the children were not citizens of war-torn Sudan). However, upon extradition to France, members of Zoe’s Ark were pardoned (Bergquist, 2009, 2012). Notably, France is the location where the group conspired to carry out the evacuation, raising funds and renting a private aircraft for their illegal activities. Some in France applauded the group’s efforts even after international outcry of wrongdoing, underscoring the complicated and emotionally loaded nature of child ‘rescue’. UNICEF Executive Director Ann Veneman (2007) released a statement condemning the actions of the group and others like social work scholar Bergquist (2009, 2012) point out that France ignored its own commitment to international private law developed to protect children from such activities and child abduction specifically (e.g. the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and the Cooperation in Relation to Intercountry Adoption).
These illegal activities were carried out by individuals working voluntarily and ultimately, if the children had been successfully relocated to France, social workers would have inevitably been engaged in the child care planning (e.g. assessing host/foster families and assisting in the family–child adjustment). For social workers, bound by a code of ethics and the principle of self-determination and requirements for informed consent (Green, 2010; Kaplan and Bryan, 2009; Reamer, 1987; Wiley and Baden, 2005), the ethical imperative of do no harm is challenged by hasty evacuation of children. And, while there is not a clear agreement on the best interests of the child in these cases, it is imperative for social workers to engage in direct and indirect ‘rescue’ efforts with caution and critical thinking about child rescue verses abduction (see Cantwell, 2004 on best interests principle).
For those reasons, including the obligation to protect human rights (Roby, 2007), the international humanitarian sector cautions against such evacuations during man-made disasters such as conflict as well as natural disasters (Doyle, 2010; International Committee of the Red Cross, 2004, 2010; International Social Services, 2010). As a result of the 2004 Great Sumatra–Andaman earthquake and tsunami and other incidents like Zoe’s Ark incident, the United Nations (2009) developed Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children which provides guidance for in-country intervention and medical evacuation of children to overseas hospitals.
The 2010 Haitian earthquake was a test of these guidelines and there were breaches of this international agreement, including a well-publicized abduction for adoption attempt and more formally arranged and sanctioned airlifts of children for intercountry adoption, some of which violated the conditions under which children could be removed (see Bergquist, 2009, 2012; Bromfield and Rotabi, 2012; Fronek and Cuthbert, 2012a; Rotabi and Bergquist, 2010). Ultimately, these incidents are those which have been relatively well documented and they serve as case studies of the problems related to emergency ‘rescue’ of children and the inherent problems of removing children from their biological family networks, to include their extended family or kin group (Fronek and Cuthbert, 2012a; Selman, 2011).
Chaos related to disaster, armed conflict and post-conflict environments pose serious challenges to family and child well-being for reasons of violence as well as food security and limited government health and social services (Bergquist, 2009, 2012; Mónico and Rotabi, 2012). These problems are further complicated by complex political realities, poverty, racism, gender inequality, and a general absence of civil society. In an oppressive environment in which human rights abuses and crimes against humanity are pervasive, child adoption has been a misused during a number of Latin American civil wars, particularly in El Salvador and Argentina (Avery, 2004; Camacho-Gingerich et al., 2007; Dubinsky, 2010; Goldschmidt, 1986; Mónico and Rotabi, 2012).
The term ‘descaparcidos’ is used when speaking of those individuals who were ‘disappeared’ during these and other Latin America conflicts (Dubinsky, 2010). Avery asserts that the children disappeared via adoption are the ‘living disappeared’ (2004: 235). Dubinsky (2010) documents the ‘missing child’ and its impact on the Americas, emphasizing the devastating effects of the crimes on the family, community, and society as a whole. Dubinsky also writes of a culture of ‘missingness’, in Guatemala particularly, and this discourse continues in modern-day and post-conflict circumstances of child adoption and child abduction for adoption (see Rotabi, 2012a, 2012b).
Conflict history, ‘living disappeared’, and post-conflict social work roles and practice
Because El Salvador and Argentina are now post-conflict nations (Horwitz and Catherwood, 2006), the focus of this article is social work practice after armed conflict, specifically as it relates to child adoption. In El Salvador, the search and find process will be explored, including family reunions. In Argentina, strict post-conflict adoption controls will be explored focusing specifically on domestic adoption policy and procedures. The role of the social worker in each nation and practice or service function will be examined within a generalist practice framework (Hepworth et al., 2010; Meenaghan et al., 2005). Clinical social work responses to trauma in El Salvador and child and adoptive family adjustment in Argentina will also be considered.
El Salvador: Case management to search for the ‘living disappeared’
The civil war in El Salvador (1980–1992) resulted in the deaths of 75,000 Salvadorans. A half a million people experienced internal displacement and almost another one million Salvadorans sought refugee status outside of the country in neighboring nations as well as the USA and Canada (United States Institute for Peace, 2001). Thousands were tortured and detained. Disintegration of families was a reality in the context of armed conflict and some family members lost each other as a result of fleeing their communities while under siege and/or military actions which resulted in forcible family separation (Pro-Búsqueda, 2002, 2004, 2009). An unknown number of disappearances and forcible removal of children from their families and communities occurred and, in many cases the Red Cross intervened – sending children to institutions of varying quality (Sprenkles et al., 2001). Other children were conscripted into military service by members of the armed forces; sometimes children lived with those who attacked their communities and families. Illegal domestic and intercountry adoptions became common during the civil war (Mónico and Rotabi, 2012; Steiner, 2007; Sprenkles et al., 2001).
The Salvadoran Association in Search of Disappeared Children (Asociación Pro-Búsqueda de Niñas y Niños Desaparecidos referred to as Pro-Búsqueda henceforth) is dedicated to search and reunion of adoptees and their biological families. This small nongovernmental organization has documented 811 cases of disappeared children and the location of 363 such individuals some of whom are adoptees living overseas (Pro-Búsqueda, 2002, 2004, 2009, 2011). The stories of those children lost and their searching families underscore the family and community/collective trauma resulting from child abduction and loss during conflict.
Currently directed by a social worker, Pro-Búsqueda implements a case management process attendant to details of the reported abduction and the trauma of those separated: biological family members, adoptees, and sometimes even adoptive parents (Alvarenga, 2011). Alvarenga (2011) described a case management process which is detailed by Mónico and Rotabi (2012) as a seven-stage approach, summarized briefly as follows. Beginning with 1) case intake, most often initiated by the biological family, Pro-Búsqueda documents the known facts of the child abduction during this initial stage of investigation. Then 2) testimonies are documented about the abduction act itself, including recorded interviews. The next step is 3) a contextual investigation including the oral history, legal documents and other historical sources. Once this step is completed, the next phase is 4) the follow-up on any leads in the case with an emphasis on interviewing those individuals who witnessed the abduction. Stage 5) involves the interviewing of relevant higher authorities such as government bureaucrats when appropriate as a result of new leads obtained during interviews. In the next step 6) a report on the findings of the investigation is provided to the party who instigated the concerns in stage one. If successful, 7) a family reunion is planned including psycho-social services to prepare and set expectations with the family group for this highly emotional stage. Also, post-reunion psychological services are provided to assist individuals and the family group. This is particularly important when considering the emotional nature of family reunions, especially family meetings intersecting with intercountry adoption and related trans-racial/cross-cultural family experiences (Kirton et al., 2000). Psychosocial services include language interpretation given the barriers to communication. Many children who were adopted overseas are not fluent in the Spanish language and many birth families do not speak the language now spoken by their adult children (Alvarenga, 2010).
It should be noted that if the investigation does not result in locating the adoptee, then after stage six, Pro-Búsqueda often returns to the investigative process with a loop back to stages two or three as appropriate. The organization continues its search until the family is reunited or the case is deemed unresolved (Alvarenga, 2011; Mónico and Rotabi, 2012). In sum, this investigative process includes intake, assessment, case analysis, interviews, individual and family counseling to set expectations. Also, intensive clinical social work intervention is provided to those affected by loss and grief, especially during and post-family reunion.
Argentina: Restrictive adoption law and case management practices
The Dirty War of Argentina (1976–1984) also has a profound history of child separation and adoption carried out as an act of reprisal against those resisting the government and military forces during civil conflict (Horwitz and Catherwood, 2006). Like El Salvador, the seven-year conflict was characterized by grotesque human rights abuses, including torture, mass murder and disappearances under the guise of ‘national security’ (Avery, 2004; Brysk, 1994). It is estimated that 30,000 people died in the war, including some social workers who were identified to be subversives given their community organizing, social justice, and human rights activities (Moljo and Moljo, 2006).
War crimes included non-relative adoptions of children born to dissident ‘pregnant women [who] were detained, tortured, and mistreated until they gave birth. The mothers were killed, while the children were taken and illicitly adopted by friends and relatives of the torturers’ (Brysk, 1994: 679; Horwitz and Catherwood, 2006). The problem was so pervasive that 30 years after the conflict began, billboards in Argentina still had the following message: ‘If you have doubts about your identity call the Abuelas’ (Avery, 2004: 236). The Abuelas are the ‘Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo’ who have searched for their children and grandchildren during the war. They still protest in Buenos Aires’ Plaza de Mayo and elsewhere for the truth, prosecutions, and family reunions.
In Argentina, there is a clear awareness in public discourse about the misuse of child adoption during the civil war. The media still documents stories and follows cases of legal prosecutions. For example, in 2011, two former dictators, five military members, and a doctor were put on trial for their ‘systematic plan to steal babies born to political prisoners’ (Warren, 2011). While the outcome of this particular trial is not known at the time of writing this article, there was a guilty verdict in a 2008 case which resulted from an adoptee’s charges that she was kidnapped by her own adoptive parents. Maria Eugenia Sampallo’s case against her adoptive parents gained international press attention due to an incarceration sentence of seven to eight years for her adoptive mother and father and a 10-year sentence for the military officer involved in the abduction crime (Elkin, 2008). Today, other high profile cases remain unresolved and continue to capture the attention of the media, including Time magazine (Goni, 2010).
Given this history, it is not a surprise that child adoption as a social intervention is now highly restricted with clearly defined controls in Argentina. Birth family rights are protected and even ‘defended’ in modern terms (Harding, 1991; O’Connor and Rotabi, 2012) as the post-conflict law requires a number of social protections. Among those controls, the view is that ‘domestic adoptions should take precedence over international ones [adoptions] . . .’ (Camacho-Gingerich et al., 2007: 154) and this protects child cultural identity and language while recognizing the importance of biological families and kinship care.
When child adoption is deemed necessary, protections include the requirement of assessment to be carried out by a social worker or psychologist. If and when the individual and family meet adoption readiness criteria, they are assigned a number on a national waiting list without any promise of child placement. A protracted child placement process is entirely managed by public officials as private adoptions are prohibited by law (Camacho-Gingerich et al., 2007). It must be underscored that this public welfare approach to child adoption is a further safeguarded; the adoption process and social work practices are carried out with financial and other transparency in the public sector, including the clear involvement of judicial oversight. This birth family rights-based approach, in which the laws support structured oversight of child–family separation and termination of parental rights, is indicative of the nation’s unfortunate history of illegal child adoptions during conflict (Brysk, 1994).
The central actor in guaranteeing the rights of children and their families are public welfare social workers who play critically important roles in this system carrying out the many necessary adoption services, ranging from direct to administrative practices, to insure the best interests of the child (Camacho-Gingerich et al., 2007). Social work practice areas include investigation of a child’s bona fide need for adoption placement, including thorough documentation of the child’s social history attendant to the details of the family system – including the extended family – and legal rights of the child. This birth family history helps identify if there are in fact family resources to prevent an out-of-family child placement. Then, in the case of adoption, this history is later used to meet the legal requirement that ‘adoptive parents . . . commit themselves to tell the child his or her real life story and to help the child get to know his or her background or origin so as to be able to develop his or her own personal narrative’ (Camacho-Gingerich et al., 2007: 155). Another critical role for social workers is post-placement assessment. Case supervision and assessments take place for the first six months to monitor child and family functioning and to provide transition counseling and other support as necessary.
Generalist social work practice in El Salvador and Argentina
In both examples, social case work characterizes the main work of social workers and, in Argentina specifically, this function crosses into case management. Each of these two different practice forms are explored.
To frame this discussion, it must be recognized that in order to carry out all of the associated social work practices in both El Salvador and Argentina, the social worker’s role must be flexible and adaptive to the unique circumstances of each child and family’s case as well as the community and perceptions of child adoption in a historical context of child abduction for adoption. This is consistent with generalist practice, the universal helping skills of social workers and the ‘generic components of social work practice . . . the task of matching needs and resources, the functional role of the practitioner; the importance of person-in-environment framework; values such as acceptance, self-determination, and individual dignity and self-worth; the importance of empowerment; and the norms, values, and ethics of [professional] conduct’ (Meenaghan et al., 2005: 8).
Bilson and Westwood (2012) outline social casework as having five core functions: advocacy, collaboration, a focus on prevention, engagement, and comprehensive service planning. These five core functions are present in social work practice in El Salvador and Argentina.
In a low-resource nation like El Salvador, with limited options for service referrals, centralized case oversight, service delivery, and monitoring is critically important. Due to this issue, a limited service referral base for the adults impacted by abduction, Pro-Búsqueda manages the vast majority of case functions throughout the search-and-find process (Alvarenga, 2011).
However, in Argentina, social casework merges into case management as there is a broader range of community services to which social workers can refer, both within the government structures as well as non-governmental organizations (Grassi and Alayón, 2005). These public and private human services organizations have trained personnel to provide a range of care including intensive therapy for birth and adoptive families as well as for adoptees themselves. This is a more sophisticated social care system than that available in El Salvador. In this resource referral environment, a case management approach with a brokerage of services is open to social workers.
Generalist practice guidelines applied to El Salvador and Argentina
Hepworth et al. (2010) outlined five guidelines for generalist practice relevant to social work in El Salvador and Argentina. These guidelines assist social workers in considering, selecting, and carrying out social intervention. They are presented as follows:
Social workers value maximum feasible self-determination, empowerment, and enhancing strengths to increase the client’s voice in decision-making.
Social workers assess circumstances from a systems perspective, mindful of the person in the situation, the setting, the community, and the organization.
Social workers are sensitive to diversity in considering interventions.
Social workers draw on evidence-based practices at both process and intervention levels as sources in determining, together with the client, how to proceed.
Social workers think critically about practice, checking out assumptions and examining alternatives (Hepworth et al., 2010).
Each of these five elements is practiced in El Salvador and Argentina where social work interventions are flexible and responsive to the unique historical contexts of child abduction for adoption.
In El Salvador, an intensive family reunion model was presented and the seven-stage process that includes assessment, investigation, family debriefing, and facilitation of reunion when possible. As necessary, Pro-Búsqueda also provides more intensive clinical support as needed to help families come to terms with trauma experiences and unresolved issues (Alvarenga, 2011). The systems perspective is critical to the investigative process and elements of self-determination integrated throughout the process. A critical approach to the investigative process, allows social workers to test assumptions and seek alternative explanations while the iterative process of searching and finding itself intervenes at all levels of the social systems. The process includes the family, community, and larger society as a whole (Tropman and Richards-Schuster, 2000).
In Argentina, the focus on tight adoption regulation includes case management in which the first intensive assessment seeks to determine if a child is truly eligible for adoption and considers birth family support prior to any adoption determination/decision. If and when appropriate, a child may enter the adoption system. Stringent controls are in place to ensure adoptive family readiness. Also, a child’s right to know their birth family history and to develop a strong identity inclusive of all elements of their past requires intensive investigation of social history and accurate and thorough written reports that will allow adoptees to explore their origins. Again, as in El Salvador, this approach adheres to a systems perspective with emphasis on family systems, self-determination, and informed consent. Assessment of the actual need for adoption is approached with a focus on family strengths. In this process, assumptions about the actual need for child adoption are tested. And, this is also true about assumptions made about prospective adoptive family readiness. Families who apply for adoption face rigorous assessment in order for authorities to make an informed child placement decision.
Conclusion
Conflict and peace processes, as well as environmental disasters, in the context of globalization require greater social work attention to ethical alternative care of children, including domestic and intercountry adoption (Bergquist, 2009, 2012; Lyons, 2006). Generalist social work practice in El Salvador and Argentina are presented as case examples with particular reference to child abduction, adoption, trauma, loss and grief. These experiences have relevance for other post-conflict nations such as Guatemala, Cambodia and Vietnam (Bergquist, 2009, 2012; Bunkers et al., 2009; Rotabi, 2012a, 2012b). As these nations move forth towards their own reconciliation for children and families unjustly removed from family life, both Argentinean and El Salvadorian service system models provide examples that firmly position the interests of child within their birth families and cultures as a priority.
In Guatemala specifically, that nation is currently re-organizing after approximately a decade of expedited adoptions. Because there were some unknown number of illegal adoptions (forced and coerced family separation), the search and reunion activities in El Salvador have potential to inform any such interventions in neighboring Guatemala (Bunkers et al., 2009; Bunkers and Groza, 2012; Casa Alianza et al., 2007; Mónico and Rotabi, 2012). The strict adoption social work practices and processes of Argentina, especially related to domestic adoptions, also have potential to inform Guatemalan social workers as they implement the new adoption legislation passed in 2007, including an emphasis on domestic adoptions (Bunkers and Groza, 2012; Bunkers et al., 2009).
Finally, social workers in industrialized and low-resource nations have an ethical responsibility to not only understand the history of child sales and abduction for adoption, but to act with guarded responsibility when intervening with children and families (Rotabi, 2012a, 2012b). This is particularly true in the planning for alternative care of children during conflict and chaos (United Nations, 2009). Adherence to national and international laws designed to regulate and even prosecute child sales and abduction for adoption is essential, including prosecution of those who are engaged in illegal practices (Hague Conference on Private International Law, 2008).
A responsible and socially just way forward is necessary to not only secure the human rights of children and families (Roby, 2007; Roby and Ife, 2009; Roby and Maskew, 2012), but to protect the profession from the disgrace of involvement in illegal child removals from family and community life. Ultimately and obviously, this requires ethical social work practices attendant to child and family rights (Hollingsworth, 2003; United Nations Children’s Fund, n.d.), most especially intervening with families impacted by conflict. Also, in times of crisis, as a profession we must resist the impulse to immediately remove children in ‘rescue’ efforts and allow countries to intervene and determine the ‘best interests’ of their own citizen children. While this assertion will inevitably be criticized as nations in conflict are invariably viewed with distrust by receiving countries of internationally adopted children. However, social workers who practice ethically and systems of care in these nations must be trusted and respected as they attempt to reunite their citizen children with their birth families as a priority. This commitment to prevent any more ‘living disappeared’ children is an important challenge for the social work profession as a whole – a commitment across space and place to define alternative care appropriately for orphaned and vulnerable children in the midst of chaos.
Footnotes
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.