Last March a conference on international adoption was held in Kathmandu. Following that gathering it was agreed that better regulation was required and that international adoption guidelines should be introduced bringing the practice into line with The Hague Convention. Quite right and proper and no argument with that. The problem is that ever since then many international couples who had been allocated children (and who had a chance to bond with them) prior to this resolution have been left in limbo as their files were suspended pending the introduction of these guidelines. This is certainly not in the interests of the 436 children who are awaiting formal adoption, never mind the equilibrium of their prospective parents. The situation has not been helped by ill-considered comments by foreigners that have been used by Nepalese xenophobes as powerful ammunition against the concept of international adoption. For instance, Gillian Mellsop, the Country Representative of UNICEF in Nepal, is on the record as having described international adoption as "a last resort". With the greatest of respect to Gillian, I beg to differ.
Further down the resorts list might be that of staying at home. A newborn baby girl in Nepal has a higher risk of death in childhood than her counterpart in the West. Aside from the filth and malnutrition that may go with a domestic upbringing in rural Nepal and predispose to early death, children who are adopted internationally are at no risk whatsoever of some very grim local diseases. For example mosquito-borne illnesses such as Japanese Encephalitis and malaria are not uncommon in the south of Nepal. Both of these can be fatal and in the case of the former if a child survives he or she can be left severely brain damaged and bed-ridden. I will never forget seeing two sisters, Bina and Rina, in this state, hidden away in a back room of the family home in Bhairahawa, able to do little other than performing their basic bodily functions.
Assuming that a child from a poor family survives to age four he or she will enter the Government school system; this is pathetically under-resourced (especially in the rural areas) where there may be one teacher to 100 pupils. Teaching is based largely on rote learning and through presenting "examples" rather than offering explanations that would lead to comprehension. Creativity and original thought are stifled. A girl child is quite likely to drop out of school through family poverty (with her brothers taking preference to stay on at school) and soon afterwards she may find herself offloaded into an arranged marriage. Early marriage means early pregnancy and this is directly linked to high maternal mortality. But even if she were to carry on in education she'd have little chance of passing the School Leaving Certificate (SLC) at age 16, this purporting to be the key to some kind of a career. Less than 1% of Nepalese children who enter the government school system at age 4 pass SLC so it's small wonder that parents pull their kids out of education well in advance of this point. Anyway, success at SLC, rare as it may be, arguably only reflects a good memory for "facts" rather than a good education in the true sense of the word. So the education system is betraying and stifling Nepal's children who seem to be so innately industrious and capable. Educational provision is not likely to get any better in the foreseeable future.
I need not compare the above family upbringing with what an adopted child might expect in the USA or Europe, even if it is at the expense of "remaining in their own culture" - and by the way don't forget the size of the expatriate Nepali communities these days (this must prove something of my argument!). At least the child has a better chance of entering adulthood in good health and as a well rounded individual than if they were to remain in Nepal. However there are other circumstances that I consider can join the impoverished family upbringing well behind the "last resort" of international adoption. From our work we know only too well of how so many children from poor families end up being trafficked into a life of abuse and exploitation that may lead to adult prostitution. Other children from poor families or broken homes run the streets of Kathmandu, sniffing glue and well on their way to a life of adult crime and the prospect of early death. Then there is the option of the institutionalisation of the children's home, where thousands of children (mainly girls) are accommodated. As I see it this really is the last resort for childcare in a society where there are so many unwanted children and where domestic adoption usually equates to servitude. My Trust provides residential refuge care out of absolute necessity - a safety net - rather than as a satisfactory care option since there is no alternative at the moment for the 75 or so desperate children that we are looking after. I'd much rather see all of them adopted by loving families in Nepal (which seem to be at a premium) or linked with childless couples abroad who are yearning to extend their love for one another to a child who needs it - and who is wanted.
