A Closed Door for Orphans? Unpacking China’s International Adoption Policy

Like many of Chinese heritage, I feel a deep sense of humility when reading about the immense love and sacrifices made by American families for their adopted children, especially those with special needs. It’s both humbling and somewhat discomfiting to reflect on the relative scarcity of such extraordinary compassion within my own cultural context. Even from a pragmatic viewpoint, China’s international adoption program can be seen as a win-win situation: orphaned children found loving homes abroad, while state orphanages received financial support and reduced their burden of care, especially for children with special needs. In light of this, China’s recent decision to halt international adoptions has not only left hundreds of American families with pending adoptions in limbo but also raised questions about the policy’s rationale.

The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs provided a vague explanation, citing alignment with “the spirit of relevant international conventions” without specifying which conventions. Presumably, this refers to the subsidiarity principle enshrined in the Hague Adoption Convention, which prioritizes domestic adoption over intercountry adoption. However, China joined the convention as early as 2005, begging the question: why now? International media have speculated on various reasons, including a global trend of tightening restrictions on international adoptions, concerns about systemic abuses such as child trafficking (referencing a 2006 case involving a ring selling babies to orphanages), and demographic concerns due to China’s slowing birthrate.

Many of these reasons seem to be built on shaky ground. Despite the persistent problem of child trafficking, instances of overt kidnapping, robbery, and theft of children have gradually decreased. The official ending of the one-child policy in 2016 has further reduced the need for parents to relinquish children to avoid punishment. Cases where parents sell their own biological children have become the primary form of child trafficking crimes.

In terms of overall demographic trends, the impact of international adoptions is minimal. Since 1992, when China officially opened its doors for international adoptions, 160,000 children have been adopted by foreign citizens. This number is too small to significantly impact China’s demographic landscape, making it an unconvincing justification for the policy change.

Signs of this policy shift were evident as early as January 2019, when the government began to highlight a decrease in child abandonment, an overall decline in adoption registrations, and the importance of prioritizing domestic adoption. From 2014 to 2018, out of 97,819 adoptions, 87.5 percent (85,581) were by Chinese citizens, while only 12.5 percent (12,238) were by foreigners. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, China suspended foreign adoptions during 2021-2022. The program saw a limited revival in 2023, but on a much smaller scale than before. According to State Department data, only 16 adoptions from China were completed in 2023. This marks a dramatic decline from the period between 2008 and 2016, when annual adoptions from China to the United States consistently ranged from 2,000 to 3,000.

Chinese government statistics, however, highlight the inadequacy of existing institutions to accommodate the significant number of orphans in China. As of 2022, China reported 159,000 orphans, with only 37 percent (59,000) in state orphanages. An additional 100,000 “socially scattered living orphans” are essentially living independently. This is a clear underestimate of the size of the orphan population in China. Government data suggests that there are 253,000 “de facto orphans” whose parents have died and whose extended families cannot care for them. That number is likely to increase given the sustained economic slowdown in the post-COVID era.

The situation is particularly dire for children with special needs. Government data shows that 98 percent of children in state orphanages have severe illnesses or disabilities. While domestic adoption of children with mild disabilities is said to be increasing, it’s unlikely to address the needs of severely disabled children. Due to traditional customs, Chinese families have preferred to adopt only healthy, young (0-3 year-old) children. Chinese officials admit that as the phenomenon of parents abandoning children has significantly decreased, there are fewer and fewer children in child welfare institutions who meet the adoption preferences of domestic families. From 2014 to 2018, 95 percent of international adoptions involved children with disabilities, demonstrating the crucial role of foreign adoption for these vulnerable children.

Many Chinese netizens view the decision negatively, questioning its impact on China’s international image and pointing out the benefits of allowing American adoptions. Some suspect that the policy change stems from a desire to avoid perceived “shame” associated with the international adoption program or concerns about the projection of U.S. soft power in China. Others believe this decision is linked to the deteriorating relationship between China and Western countries, especially the United States. In a recent speech, President Xi Jinping expressed his distaste toward those “with Chinese faces but no Chinese heart, no Chinese affection and no Chinese taste,” warning against the danger of “hostile forces competing for Chinese kids.” Although his remarks were directed at the education system, they might be overinterpreted by sycophantic bureaucrats eager to please Xi by abandoning the entire international adoption program.

In conclusion, while China’s decision to halt international adoptions seems to align with global trends and addresses some legitimate concerns, it overlooks the unique benefits these adoptions provided, particularly for children with special needs. The policy change may leave many vulnerable children without the opportunity for a family life abroad, potentially condemning them to institutional care until they age out at eighteen, with uncertain prospects thereafter. Instead of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, a more nuanced approach that addresses abuses in the system while maintaining international adoption as an option for hard-to-place children could better serve the interests of China’s orphaned and abandoned children.