Public service or private affair? The application of ‘kinship by design’ to intercountry adoption in England

Introduction

In response to the dramatic increase in intercountry adoptions (ICAs) in many countries beginning in the 1960s, the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption established substantive (albeit minimal) standards, safeguards and procedures meant to govern the practice and protect the children and families involved. Founded on the principle of the ‘best interests of the child’, this framework embraces the ideals of ‘kinship by design’, a concept proposed by Herman (2008) to depict the history and evolution of domestic adoption practice in the United States. The fundamental idea behind ‘kinship by design’ posits adoption as a professionalised and rationalised process that ultimately seeks to manage its inherent risks and control outcomes in the interests of children, families and the state. In particular, specialised matching, parental assessment, preparation, education and support have evolved to serve a preventive function and ensure the success of the placement.

Similar to the US, England has had a long history of domestic adoption, with policy and practice developments reflecting the changing (and contextualised) tides of ‘kinship by design’. Until recently, ICA was more of a contentious, private affair only marginally affected by these changes. In order to enable the ratification of the Hague Convention, regulations for ICA were tightened and the practice was integrated into the state service by applying to it the provisions of reformed domestic adoption policies. However, despite the aim of homogenising the service, research suggests that policy has not ensured the development of a specialised service that achieves preventive ideals prior to or following child placement to the same degree as domestic adoption (Hoffman, 2013, 2014). This article analyses the status of ICA in England by examining the application of Herman’s concept of ‘kinship by design’ and the related family policy approach of prevention and early intervention to ICA in the context of adoption reform and wider state objectives in adoption.

Kinship by design

In its early days, adoption was largely an unregulated practice, governed by commercial and/or sentimental interests among professionals and parents alike (Herman, 2008; Keating, 2009). Tracing changes to adoption practice in the US in the 20th century, Herman (2008) argues that a more rationalised approach emerged from a growing, empirically-based understanding of child development and the potential (negative) outcomes in adoption (particularly non-infant adoptions). Through regulated, skilled management and specialised knowledge, the new professionalised service aimed to ‘conquer chance and vanquish uncertainty’ (p. 1) by predicting the risks and outcomes of adoption and increasing control over the formation of non-relative families. Efforts to mitigate the risks included matching techniques on physical, social and psychological characteristics, which better enabled couples to feel as if the child was biologically related and thereby (paradoxically) fostered ‘natural’ kinship. Moreover, scrutinising and adjusting parents’ behaviours, motivations and personalities in home study assessments and educating them on the risks and rewards of adoption offered the opportunity to therapeutically elicit growth in attitudes and expectations in children’s, families’ and the state’s ‘best interests’.

Throughout its historical evolution, ‘kinship by design’ has simultaneously been supported by and faced resistance from the state, adoption professionals, families and the general public and has continued to be redesigned. Since the 1970s, in both the US and England, the focus has shifted to meeting the needs of ‘hard to place’ children over-represented in the care system, including older children, disabled children, sibling groups and Black and mixed parentage children. Consequently, efforts to control outcomes in adoption have been further complicated by the ‘special needs’ of many of these children, evidence supporting the importance of birth family contact, and increased placements across racial, ethnic and national boundaries. While such changes to practice could be construed as a loosening of ‘kinship by design’, in actuality, the promotion of adoption for a wider range of children has mostly strengthened governance through increased regulation and expert management of placement processes. Despite disagreements regarding best practice, adoption professionals and policy makers generally agree that, by enabling parents to make informed decisions and manage difficulties that arise, parental assessment, preparation, education and support are crucial for the success of the placement (The Donaldson Adoption Institute [DAI], 2008).

For adopters, such regulated and standardised practices are both valued and invasive. As the scrutiny reserved for adoption has intensified, state and professional involvement in and power over the lives of adoptive families have increased, thus blurring the boundaries between public and private spheres. The resulting relationship between adoptive parents and social workers has straddled the line between mistrustful tension and a desire for reassurance and professional expertise throughout the placement (Howe, 1996; Humphreys and Humphreys, 1993; Simmonds and Haworth, 2000). In the US, privately arranged adoptions have continued, allowing some families to bypass both the state and the constraints of ‘kinship by design’. By contrast, in England such placements in domestic adoption have been prohibited since the Adoption Act 1976. Only ICA has remained a semi-privatised practice, despite alignment with domestic adoption practices in the most recent legislation (Hoffman, 2013, 2014). With the global regulation of ICA and associated changes to national policies and practices, the reach of ‘kinship by design’ has now been formally extended to ICA. Nevertheless, in England its grip remains somewhat tenuous.

Adoption reform in England

Kirton (2013) draws on various aspects of ‘kinship by design’ to analyse historical changes to adoption practice as well as current adoption reform in England. Particularly relevant for this analysis is the modernising agenda of the New Labour government (1997–2010) and the extension of ‘kinship by design’ into post-placement support. Driven by research-based evidence of poor outcomes for children in care and the high expense of an over-burdened state child care system, the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and its subsequent regulations were enacted with the aim of bringing adoption ‘back into the mainstream of children’s services’ (Department of Health [DoH], 1998) and facilitating the practice. Reflecting the view that certain ‘kinship by design’ practices were a hindrance to wider scale adoption of children from the care system, changes were introduced to minimise delay and increase the number of adoptions from care (Performance and Innovation Unit, 2000). Despite the general hostility towards ‘kinship by design’, its reach was expanded through new provisions for adoption support and a short-term financial investment that supported the development of a comprehensive support service.

The extension of ‘kinship by design’ to include adoption support reflects a shift in perspective from adoption as a ‘clean break’ to recognition of the lifelong impact of early adverse experiences and adoption as a placement choice. The unprecedented statutory framework introduced by New Labour first extended the Assessment Framework – previously applied exclusively in cases of children in care or ‘in need’ – to adoption in 2000 (DoH et al., 2000). Through the use of standardised, evidence-based assessment tools, support needs should now be proactively identified and analysed at various stages of the adoption process so that interventions with clearly intended outcomes can be planned. Families of adopted children also acquired the right to a responsive assessment by their council for post-placement support until the child turns 18 (Bingley-Miller and Bentovim, 2007). The assessment philosophy represents a further mechanism by which adoption is rationalised and its outcomes predicted and controlled.

Legislation then placed a duty on local children’s services to provide or arrange for the provision of support should a need be determined from the assessment. In the Adoption Support Services Regulations 2005, the government specified a standard range of tailored adoption support services, including counselling, advice and information; financial support; support groups; assistance with contact; therapeutic services; services to maintain an adoption; and assistance with or to prevent disruption. However, the provision of services was left to the discretion of the agency (Section 4.4, Adoption and Children Act 2002) and financial responsibility was not stipulated (Ball, 2005). Thus considerable emphasis has been placed on the assessment of needs, but there is no clear obligation or ensured financial capability to meet those needs (Hart and Luckock, 2004). This inconsistency reflects state ambivalence towards the role and status of adoptive parents and is discussed further in the next section.

The Coalition Government, which came into power in 2010, largely followed in the footsteps of New Labour in its rhetorical assault on ‘kinship by design’ and the promotion of adoption as both a less expensive and ‘best interests’ solution to the growing number of children in care. On the premise of systemic failure to place adoptable children (associated in particular with ethnic and racial matching practices) and the presumption of sufficiently available adopters, the Government renewed the focus on tackling delay and performance management to facilitate more and quicker adoptions.

In relation to post-adoption support, a significant step was taken towards addressing the issue of adoptive families’ entitlement to services. Advice and advocacy from adoption professionals (Department for Education [DfE], 2012a; Lepper, 2011) and research-based evidence of unmet support needs (Holmes et al., 2013; Pennington, 2012) have engendered formal acknowledgement that adoption placements must be supported in order to encourage prospective parents to adopt children with complex needs and to prevent breakdown. In September 2013, the Government announced its plans for a £19.3 million Adoption Support Fund, which enables providers to expand therapeutic services and ensure access for families until the child is 18 (DfE, 2013). Additional changes since 2010 have included (but are not limited to) the extension of priority school admissions to adopted children and the introduction of personal budgets, which give parents control over the services they access (DfE, 2012b).

Despite the emphasis on timely placements in lieu of exhaustive efforts to control all possible risks, Kirton (2013) argues that the fundamental ideas and managed practices associated with ‘kinship by design’ (e.g. preparation and education) have not been seriously challenged by New Labour or the Coalition. Moreover, ‘kinship by design’ has further permeated the boundaries between the state and the family with legislative provisions for and financial commitment to adoption support. While some degree of ambivalence towards the status of adoptive parents undoubtedly remains, there is renewed focus on the ‘risky’ nature of adoption and the role of adoption in meeting policy goals. Constructed in this way, (domestic) adoption not only demands state and professional commitment and intervention but also deserves public support.

Status of adoptive families

According to Herman (2008), the paradox of ‘kinship by design’ is its emphasis on the risks of adoption while simultaneously promising to create authentic, ‘natural’ families through scientifically informed, professional practice. Prior to New Labour’s modernisation of adoption policy, adoption rested at the margins of state child care services due to the persisting view of the adoptive family as a ‘normal’ biological family, as well as the prioritisation of other child care activities and the traditional role of voluntary agencies in adoption work (Parker, 1999). Within the new policy framework, Hart and Luckock (2004) argue that ambivalence towards the role and status of adoptive parents is apparent with regard to entitlements to support. Adoptive parents have been constructed as both ordinary and distinctive. On the one hand, they have been carefully selected and shaped through state-regulated ‘kinship by design’ processes to ensure success and the replication of birth families. Once the family has been formed, autonomy from the state is both expected and valued. On the other hand, their role as ‘reparative parents’ for children with undeniably complex needs is recognised. This ambivalence is reflected in adoption support provisions entitling adoptive families to assessments for specialised services in addition to standard family support, but not ensuring the delivery of effective adoption-related support or prioritisation within mainstream services as with children still in the care system (Hart and Luckock, 2004).

The expectations and entitlements of adoptive families must be considered in the broader context of family policy ideals. The view that effective parenting and family functioning are linked to children’s emotional and behavioural development and key to tackling ‘anti-social behaviour’, crime and unemployment has propelled a policy approach of intervention into the lives of families (Muncie and Goldson, 2006). Indeed, the family has become both a private and public space with both familial and societal duties and responsibilities to achieve outcomes specified in the Every Child Matters strategy (Department for Education and Skills, 2003; Edwards and Gillies, 2004; Luckock, 2008). By constructing parenting as a job that requires particular skills and expertise and focusing on the ‘best interests of the child’, the preventive and early intervention of qualified professionals is legitimised (Home Office, 1998). Particularly in the case of ‘at risk’ children, if parents are unwilling or unable to accept support, advice and guidance they may be subjected to authoritarian intervention (Edwards and Gillies, 2004). Informed by evidence suggesting the tendency to ‘overestimate the capacity of families to improve’ and of neurological damage caused by maltreatment, Coalition policy appeared to promote early intervention in the form of child removal and speedy placement with adoptive families (DfE, 2012a: 14).

Prevention and early intervention are integral to adoptive family formation, taking the form of scrutinised assessment, ‘expert’ matching and preparation of both the child and adopters. The dilemma arises when considering the extent to which prevention and early intervention should be extended to the post-placement period. If adopters have been approved based on their parental qualities and educated in the needs of adopted children, then investment in continuing support arguably contradicts the fundamental philosophy of ‘kinship by design’. Taking into account the additional costs to the state and concerns over ‘problem’ families, the government tends to be reluctant (or even resistant) to classify adopted children as ‘at risk’ and (further) ‘privilege’ adoptive families (Kirton, 2013). However, the increased likelihood of breakdown in challenging adoptions, the potential social return on investment (Clifford, 2011; Coram, 2011) and the ambition of attracting more prospective adopters have also prompted policy changes. The assessment framework, therefore, demonstrates the recognised importance of preventive measures in successful adoption outcomes, and the prescribed range of adoption-specific services (though resource-dependent) also largely symbolises an early investment approach. The Coalition Government’s investment in the Adoption Support Fund is a further indication of the interest in controlling outcomes and the value placed on domestic adoptive families as service providers for the state (with the right to determine the extent of state intervention in their lives following the adoption order).

Status of intercountry adoptive families

Compared to many other countries, ICA in England had a late start and only affected a small number of children primarily from Hong Kong and other former Commonwealth countries (Way and Mason, 2000). It was not until the 1980s that adoption from overseas gained notable momentum, followed by an increase in the early 1990s alongside media exposure of the pervasion and dire state of Romanian orphanages after the fall of Ceausescu. At that time, family policy was experiencing a shift to a more liberal individualist approach that emphasised adoption as an ideal solution to the economic burden and moral decline associated with the ‘underclass’. The new approach included a governmental (and media) campaign against the alleged political correctness of same-race adoption placements that downplayed the importance of racial and cultural heritage and openly criticised local authorities for their hostility and expectations towards transracial adopters, as well as their ‘unrealistic hopes’ of racial and ethnic matching (Kirton, 2000). Frequently involving the movement of a child from one ethnic or racial group to another, ICA was often perceived as a parent-centred means of acquiring young children and circumventing domestic same-race placement policies in place in over 60 percent of local authorities (Butt et al., 1991). By contrast, the Conservative administration expressed general support for the practice of providing homes for any children ‘in need’. Thus, while an inevitable rift between intercountry families and adoption professionals grew, ICA arguably became a political object symbolising the permanency movement for all children in care, regardless of skin colour. However, the practice, which could potentially detract from state objectives, was not to be promoted.

ICA has maintained a low profile in England. In the absence of targeted legislation and clear, uniform, state-regulated procedures, early adopters often bypassed local authority adoption agencies, privately commissioned home studies, and adopted according to the laws of the child’s state of origin. Beginning in the early 1990s, the Department of Health attempted to develop policies to regulate ICA and asked local authority social service departments to provide home study reports for prospective adopters. Yet there were no clear guidelines on or systematic involvement in the identification of a child, preparation for adoption, or counselling (Selman and White, 1994). Moreover, local authorities maintained enough autonomy to refuse service, and policies varied from one agency to another. In some cases, inertia, intrusive interviewing and unreasonable eligibility criteria continued to deter parents and heighten tensions surrounding the practice (Hayes, 2000).

Following the shift in power to New Labour in 1997, the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 and the Intercountry Adoption (Hague Convention) Regulations 2003 were enacted to enable the ratification of the 1993 Hague Convention in 2003. The Hague Convention was a response to risky and illicit child trade practices and represents the first binding contract to globally regulate and apply the ideals of ‘kinship by design’ to ICA. While the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child had served as a starting point for legally and universally establishing priority for family care, it did not propose a specific policy to regulate ICA and even appeared to position ICA as an option of last resort. By contrast, the Hague Convention legitimises ICA with its emphasis on permanency for children. Although it does not offer a uniform law of adoption, it defines basic requirements, procedures and safeguards that arguably constitute a child-centred approach to placement decisions for children (potentially) involved in ICA.

Thus, in accordance with the ambitions of ‘kinship by design’, responsibilities are allocated to designated and accredited authorities in both sending and receiving States. According to the Hague Convention’s Guide to Good Practice (HCCH, 2008), the ‘best interests of the child’ are also ensured through the involvement of qualified and supervised professionals, the provision of legitimate and comprehensive information in relation to the child’s adoptability and medical history, formal assessment of parental suitability, sufficient and appropriate preparation, as well as professional matching and support. In practice, however, difficulties with implementation abound and its provisions are not internationally enforced.

Compliance with the Hague Convention in England has entailed placing ICA on equal footing with domestic adoption by applying to it the provisions of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and its regulations, in addition to specifying and tightening regulations for ICA. The new law forbids adoption through private agencies, as well as the use of private home study reports, and it became a criminal offence to bring a foreign child into the country without undergoing the adoption procedures provided by local authorities and accredited agencies. Consequently, local authorities acquired the statutory duty of providing an ICA service. While its integration into the state service can be said to represent an implicit commitment to state regulation and support in cases of ICA, a ‘two-tier service’ persists in both policy and practice.

In an exploratory doctoral study, the author analysed the extent to which adoption policy in England has achieved the aim of eliminating the ‘two-tier service’. The published findings offer the only insight into preparation, assessment and support in ICA and are highlighted here for the purposes of this analysis (Hoffman, 2013, 2014). In accordance with ‘kinship by design’ practices, prospective intercountry adopters must receive preparation and undergo a full assessment, which is neither inferior to nor less rigorous than the domestic adoption service. (Matching falls under the responsibility of the country of origin.) However, policy has not ensured the delivery of a pre-placement service that is founded on professional knowledge and experience in ICA and therefore effectively serves its preventive function. While research has identified unique preparation needs in ICA (DAI, 2008; Harnott and Robertson, 1999), there is currently no requirement that intercountry adopters attend preparation courses tailored to those needs. Rather, it is left to the discretion of the assessing agency to determine the most appropriate form and substance of preparation, as well as the extent to which social work teams acquire the relevant training and education.

In practice, many local authority adoption agencies now outsource preparation and/or assessment to more specialised voluntary adoption agencies. Nevertheless, others continue to provide pre-placement services in-house that do not always sufficiently address issues specific to ICA. Given the low numbers of ICA spread throughout the country (only 473 applications and 572 matches between 2010 and 2013), resource constraints and the prioritisation of domestic adoption, it is hardly surprising that the necessary knowledge and experience are not developed. In this study, both local authority social workers and intercountry adoptive families confirmed that applicants were often more knowledgeable than the assessing social worker, and prospective adopters commonly rely on independent sources for information about the adoption process and risks associated with children adopted from overseas (Hoffman, 2013). Without adequate ICA-specific preparation, the ‘kinship by design’ aims of making informed decisions and developing realistic expectations are less likely to be achieved.

Regarding post-placement support, the service entitlements of intercountry families have not been specified in legislation or regulations. However, the entitlements of ‘agency adoptive children’ (i.e. children placed for adoption by a British agency or adopted by a local authority foster carer) and their families are distinguished from those of all adopted children (including intercountry). While intercountry adopted children are entitled to an assessment of need following placement, the proactive assessment duties under the Assessment Framework do not necessarily apply in ICA. In particular, the Adoptions with a Foreign Element Regulations 2005 do not require an assessment of need to form part of early discussions of appropriate and available support. Although the proposed match should be discussed prior to placement, intercountry adopters are not required to return to the panel for consideration of the referral or consult with a specialist medical adviser about known or potential health conditions. The extent to which post-placement review visits take place (and provide an opportunity for proactive assessment) will also depend on the status and post-placement report policies of the child’s country of origin.

It is noteworthy that an integrative, preventive approach to support needs encounters the obstacle in ICA of limited availability of information about the child, whose needs will not have been assessed in England prior to placement or reliably evaluated and documented in the country of origin. This renders it difficult to predict and control outcomes (Mather and Kerac, 2002). Where assessments do occur and a need for services is determined, agencies need not provide or arrange for the provision of financial support, support groups or contact/intermediary services for overseas families. Furthermore, agencies are not obligated to tailor services to the specific needs of intercountry adoptive families. Under the Coalition Government, most of the adoption support initiatives were only extended to families with children from the domestic care system.

While there are, indeed, similar needs between children adopted domestically and from overseas, the unique needs of some intercountry adopted children have been widely documented, particularly in relation to illness and disease associated with poor conditions in developing countries (e.g. Jenista and Chapman, 1987), cognitive impairment (e.g. Johnson and Dole, 1999) and attachment disorders (e.g. Van den Dries et al., 2009) associated with institutional care and identity development (e.g. DAI, 2009). With only a few exceptions, specialist ICA services are virtually non-existent in the UK and the services provided by both state and voluntary agencies are – while mostly accessible to intercountry families – targeted at domestic adoptive families. In the study by Hoffman (2014), the lack of knowledge and experience in ICA was considered by some adoption professionals to be an obstacle to providing effective support. Moreover, many of these families are not proactively informed of support services, assessed or supported, and assumptions regarding families’ existing support networks, support preferences and financial resources appear to justify a more reactive approach. Thus, in practice, intercountry adoptive families represent an additional burden for adoption agencies faced with increased demand for services among domestic adoptive families and limited resources.

With their inclusion in policy provisions, the status of intercountry adoptive families has changed, placing them more firmly under the influence of ‘kinship by design’. However, in the application of preventive ideals, there appears to be less (or more ambiguous) commitment. Despite the shift to a state-regulated activity, ICA remains on the margins of the adoption service and policy does not ensure the development of a professional, knowledgeable service that effectively prepares families for the adoption or supports them following placement to the same degree as domestic adoption. While most practitioners would likely be committed to supporting any adopted child in need, tensions continue to surround the practice in relation to the choice to go overseas, the status and responsibilities of the family involved, and the role of the state.

In 2011, David Cameron stated that ‘we’ve got people flying all over the world to adopt babies, while the care system at home agonises about placing black children with white families’ (Cameron, 2011). Such a remark (arguably) suggests that the practice of ICA in England is directly linked to restrictive practices in domestic adoption, particularly same-race matching, and implies that ICA would otherwise be unnecessary. Notably, this view ignores the fact that England has one of the lowest rates of ICA among receiving countries, as well as the diverse, documented factors that influence parents’ choice to adopt overseas (Gailey, 2010; Zhang and Lee, 2011). Nevertheless, ICA remains tolerated only as a political symbol of broader state objectives, with the application of ‘kinship by design’ largely regulatory in nature. From this perspective, a dedicated approach of prevention and early intervention for the purposes of ensuring the successful formation of intercountry adoptive families would only serve to encourage more overseas adoptions and thus detract both resources and potential adopters from the domestic adoption programme.

The presumed socio-economic status of intercountry adopters and priorities of the welfare state also appear to have an impact on the attitude and approach to ICA. Attributable to the high costs of the ICA process, families who adopt from overseas primarily belong to the middle and upper-middle classes (Hoksbergen, 2000), and they are widely known for their personal resources in the form of financial and social capital and general economic stability (Howell, 2006). There is some evidence in England that despite concerns for the needs of these children, assumptions are made about these families’ abilities to acquire and afford support services (Hoffman, 2014). In an environment of austerity, social problems arising from neoliberalism and adoption reform fuelled by a ‘manufactured crisis’ in the care system (Kirton, 2013), economically stable adopters who have undergone the rigorous ‘kinship by design’ selection process to adopt children who were never the responsibility of the British state are not likely to elicit any degree of focused attention. Unlike domestic adoption, ICA does not provide a service to the children for whom the state acts as a ‘corporate parent’. Whereas domestic adoption (including post-placement support) is associated with cost savings, ICA more closely resembles a private, consumer-driven service with the expectation of limited or no public financial investment.

This status is, in many ways, reinforced by the attitudes, behaviours and expectations of the ICA community. In its most recent phase, ICA has been characterised as a demand-driven practice involving childless couples seeking to complete their families (Saclier, 2000). In her examination of how class, gender and race shape adoption in the US, Gailey (2010) asserts that economically stable adopters are more likely to define kinship as exclusive (i.e. bounded with distance from outsiders), and intercountry adopters, in particular, practice a contractual kinship involving exclusive legal rights and distance from birth families. Such arrangements create conditions conducive to achieving the ‘natural kinship’ ideals of early adoption practice. Less willing to perceive themselves as part-time parents and service providers for the state, intercountry adopters are conceivably more resistant to involvement of the state in their private family sphere.

In the UK, historically negative attitudes towards ICA, limited knowledge and experience, and the two-tier service framework have unsurprisingly encouraged further independence and even resistance to state interference. Furthermore, having been assessed and approved as competent, suitable parents, adopters may expect to be able to cope alone and perceive a request for help as a sign of failure (Harris-Short, 2008). Nevertheless, complaints of inadequate preparation, unmet needs for support, and expressed frustration with local and national attitudes and practices (Hoffman, 2014) indicate that a certain degree of preventive and specialised knowledge and professional expertise are deemed acceptable and even welcomed by many intercountry adopters. While it must be acknowledged that the ‘service lottery’ in post-adoption support has endured and research has documented unmet support needs in domestic adoption (Holmes et al., 2013; Pennington, 2012), the policy and practice approach to preparation, assessment and support in ICA indicates that the preventive ideals of ‘kinship by design’ and the social investment state are not equally applied to intercountry adoptive families.

Discussion

The aim of this article has been to examine the status of intercountry adoptive families in England through an analysis of the application of ‘kinship by design’ and the family policy approach of prevention and early intervention to ICA in the context of modernised adoption policies and wider state objectives in adoption. Although not extensively pursued in England compared to other receiving nations, ICA has historically been a contentious practice that, until recently, was tolerated but largely ignored in both policy and social work practice. To enable the ratification of the Hague Convention, this semi-private, almost secretive activity forcibly shifted to a state-regulated and supported practice, now formally subjected to ‘kinship by design’ processes seeking to predict risks and control outcomes in the formation of adoptive families. However, policy and practice stop short of fulfilling preventive aims both prior to and following child placement. Adoption reforms under the New Labour and Coalition Governments manifest the state’s interest in facilitating domestic adoption, thereby minimising the burden of the care system and ensuring desirable outcomes for ‘at-risk’ children through social mobility and specialised, as well as standard, family support. As previously argued, the adoption of children from overseas symbolises governmental perspectives of matching practices at best, but otherwise does not serve policy objectives and even (presumably) threatens to undermine them. Unlike domestic adoption, ICA, therefore, does not demand public commitment and support, and the line between the state and the intercountry family remains intact.

Since 2004, annual numbers of ICA have steadily fallen (Selman, 2012). There is currently little evidence to explain the decline; however, it has been argued that as more and more countries of origin have adopted the Hague Convention, they have begun to implement its principle of subsidiarity (Pinderhughes et al., 2013). In accordance with this principle, ratifying states are expected to prioritise the placement of children with permanent families in the country of origin. The most recent statistics indicate that a growing number of children made available and placed for adoption overseas have special needs (Selman, 2012), suggesting that younger, healthier children may now be reserved for domestic adoption. If this trend continues, alongside a willingness among prospective intercountry adoptive parents to take in these children, challenges for families and professionals will inevitably emerge.

In 2013, Reuters Investigates reported that an underground market for adopted children in the US had developed in the last decade, offering adoptive parents the possibility of privately ‘re-homing’ unwanted children (Twohey, 2013). Through Yahoo and Facebook groups, parents struggling with the severe issues and needs of their children, most of whom come from abroad, can privately and informally pass them on to new families. Such a disturbing development should not be conceived as inherent to ICA, nor attributed solely to weaknesses within the American legal system. Rather, it illustrates the risks of unsystematically or ineffectively implemented ‘kinship by design’ processes consisting of assessments, matching, preparation and education informed by the needs of children most likely to be made available for adoption, as well as specialised support and services to meet those needs.

While outcomes cannot realistically be controlled, more reliable measures can be taken to enable prospective adopters to make informed decisions and to promote the welfare of both children and families. Recommendations for changes to support provision in ICA in England have been made elsewhere (Hoffman, 2013, 2014). In particular, government support for dedicated ICA services provided or facilitated by voluntary adoption agencies and adoption support agencies would address the gap without additionally burdening state agencies. A similar approach has been taken in the Netherlands, where extensive experience has been developed from significantly higher numbers of ICA.

As the profile of intercountry adopted children changes, it becomes increasingly important for the approach to service provision to change. Whether or not adoption is the most appropriate placement route for a particular child is primarily a question to be addressed by countries of origin as they develop or continue to develop their child welfare and protection systems. However, it is also a responsibility of receiving countries to collaborate with sending countries, as well as to do their own part, to ensure successful outcomes for those children placed overseas. In England, attention is understandably (though perhaps immoderately) preoccupied with the workings of the domestic care system, but the problem also resides in the government’s failure to take an unequivocal position on the practice. No country is required to participate in ICA. If the practice is allowed to continue in England, there must be resolved commitment to protecting and meeting the needs of the children and families involved, by effectively preparing and training adopters, working together with countries of origin to obtain reliable information about the child, carrying out informed assessments and providing support that addresses the issues that arise. Such commitment need not be a financial burden to the state. As with all families, early investment minimises the risk of disruption, delinquency and social exclusion, and as citizens of the British state, these children are equally deserving of that investment.