The Donaldson Adoption Institute | Untangling the Web II
!
to children’s services in all the countries in which they work; the provider was conservative in its advertising and didn’t make unrealistic promises; the provider was more than an adoption agency – they do work within the countries they serve… and are children’s advocates.”!
Not all attempts to locate reliable providers were successful. As one noted: “Based on our research (which later turned out to be wrong), the agency appeared to be ethical and culturally competent.” Another said: “Saw a child on an international listing and his case was with this agency. (Pretty much the worst way to find your agency).” !
!
The second most-common “other” category for selecting a provider was that the child was in foster care, and thus there was not a choice of agency, but rather the agency was dictated by the child’s status.!
!
Values described the third-largest category, with many responses tied to the provider’s religious focus (primarily Christian). However, a few specifically said they chose a broker or agency because it was not religious (or Christian). Several who adopted internationally noted that the provider’s commitment to serving children and families in the country of origin fit with their own values. Others reported their choice was influenced by the provider’s commitment to pregnant women considering adoption.! Other aspects of providers’ work also appealed to the values or beliefs of parents. Illustrative comments include:!
!
“This agency matched our beliefs and we knew we could trust them after meeting with them. We had had a meeting with another agency first, but left the meeting feeling very discouraged and not agreeing with the things they were saying and doing.” !
!
“The provider had a strong reputation locally and an ethical philosophy regarding their role in the adoption process - to assist women experiencing an unwanted pregnancy regardless of their ultimate decision to parent or choose adoption.”!
!
“Orphanage (supported by provider) was providing child welfare services to older, non-adoptable children in their care with our fees.”! ! Values were also noted in terms of agency openness to serving non-traditional families or prospective adoptive parents whose situations meant other providers would not readily serve them – such as people who were older, or single wishing to adopt internationally, or gay and lesbian adults. !
!
Several respondents noted that their selection of provider was tied to the type of child they wanted to adopt, or that the agency worked in the country from which they hoped to adopt. For example, one parent wanted to adopt “a healthy deaf
!49