ICA Research Paper

A Comparative Study of the History and Policies of Adoption: Honduras and Mexico to the
United States
“There are no unwanted children,
just unfound families.”
– The National Adoption Center
Abstract
This article addresses the difference between adoptions from Honduras and Mexico by citizens
of the United States. We will review the history of adoption in these countries in addition to the
current legal procedures involved in the adoption process. Policies such as the Hague Adoption
Convention and United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child will be discussed in depth
in relation to inter-country adoption and its effect on the adoption process.
Defining Adoption
Adoption is a practice that has existed across the nations for centuries. In recent history, adoption
has been defined and refined by various governments, international/national organizations, and
scholars in the field. An international perspective on adoption comes from The United Nation’s
International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) who defines adoption as “a welfare and
protection measure that enables an orphaned or definitively abandoned child to benefit from a
permanent family. The practice of adoption can be subdivided into domestic (or in-country, or
national) adoption, intercountry adoption and international adoption” (The United Nation’s
International Children’s Emergency Fund, 2015). The United Nations (UN) defines adoption as
“the legal and voluntary taking and treating of the child of other parents as one’s own in so far as
provided by the laws of the country. By means of a judicial process, whether related or not to the
adopter, the adopted child acquires the rights and status of a legitimate child” (The United
Nations, 2015). A national organization, The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
(DHHS) refers to adoption as, “the social, emotional, and legal process in which children who
will not be raised by their birth parents become full and permanent legal members of another
family while maintaining genetic and psychological connections to their birth family” (DHHS,
2015).
Scholars such as Cole and Donely (1990) define adoption by dividing it into three sections,
including referencing it as a personal act, a legal process, and a social service (as sited in Wiley,
O’Brien, Baden, & Zamostny, 2003, p.652).
“As a personal act, Cole (1985) states that adoption involves three sets of participants
collectively known as the adoption triad—the adoptee, the birth family, and the adoptive
family—and is now thought of as a lifelong process rather than a single act (Brodzinsky
et al., 1998; Rosenberg, 1992; Silin, 1996; Smith & Howard, 1999). As a legal process,
adoption has been defined as “the method provided by law to establish the legal
relationship of parent and child between persons who are not so related by birth” (Child

Welfare League of America, 1978). Adoption as a social service addresses the needs of
adoption triad members through such steps as identifying and legally freeing children to
be adopted, selecting and preparing families for adoption, preparing and placing children
in adoptive families, and providing postplacement and postadoptive services.” (as sited in
Wiley, O’Brien, Baden, & Zamostny, 2003. p.652)
Cornell University Law School (2015) defines adoption as, “the act by which an adult formally
becomes the guardian of a child and incurs the rights and responsibilities of a parent. At the
conclusion of the formal process, a legal relationship between child and guardian will have
formed. The legal relationship results in the adoptee becoming the legal heir of the adopter and
terminates any legal rights then in existence with the natural parents”.
While each of these definitions is valid, they each highlight a different aspect of adoptions. Each
of these definitions is tailored to their organization’s outlook and position in the adoption
process. Cornell University Law School and the UN focus on the legal aspects of adoption while
UNICEF is more concerned with the welfare of the child throughout the adoptive process.
DHHS recognizes both the legal process and the welfare of the child. This is a more
comprehensive definition than those of Cornell Law and the UN. The predominant focus of child
welfare is to reunite the child with his/her biological parents. If this is not possible, the goal
becomes placing the child with extended family, followed by a national adoption, then, as a last
resort, an international adoption. The UNICEF and DHHS definitions of adoption align best with
the child welfare goal of adoption, focusing on the child’s well-being, while the UN and Cornell
Law focus primarily on the adoptive parents and the process involved. As previously noted,
adoption scholars have defined three facets of adoption; the personal act, the legal process, and
the social service. While each of these facets is well defined, they do not provide a complete,
clear synthesis of adoption.
In conclusion, there is no comprehensive definition of adoption due to its broad nature. It would
be beneficial for the legal practitioners, organizations, and anyone involved to have access to a
definition that contains both the legalities and the child’s welfare, as well as the legal process for
the birth and adoptive parents.
History:
Adoption as a National Concern
According to the U.S. Department of State (2013), “…intercountry and domestic adoption both
consist of the legal transfer of parental rights and responsibilities from a child’s birth parent(s) or
other guardian to a new parent or parents.” Additionally, according to the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services (2007), foster care is defined as “…temporary service provided by
States for children who cannot live with their families. Children in foster care may live with
relatives or with unrelated foster parents. Foster care can also refer to placement settings such as
group homes, residential care facilities, emergency shelters, and supervised independent living.”

Adoption and foster-care have developed extensively over the last century. Progress, slow as it
may seem, is being made. Prior to the 20th Century, foster-care and adoption were relatively non-
existent due to parent’s lack of knowledge about their options once a child was born (Palacios &
Amorós, 2006; Palacios & Brodzinsky, 2010). Throughout the past decades, adoption and
foster-care programs have become more advanced, and specific examples will be further
discussed. This is due to an increase in laws and involvement of the U.S. government in the
welfare of children. These events paved the way for change and transition of the adoption and
foster-care systems (Palacios & Amorós, 2006). They also provide a comprehensive picture of
the history of adoption and foster-care, as well as current research on adoptive parents, children,
and implications for practice.
In the past, adoption and foster-care have earned bad reputations. This is due to events such as
orphan trains or foundling homes in the United States where the best interest at the time may not
have been the child. For example, in the 1850s, children were sent to Arizona on orphan trains
and sold to farmers as a source of labor. The idea behind the orphan trains was not to mirror
slavery but rather to provide these parentless children with stable homes (Palacios & Brodzinsky,
2010). Although the children gained homes, love and support were not generally provided, thus
thwarting the original intent of benefiting the child. Vulnerable children were exploited whether
it was intentional or unintentional. Likewise, foundling homes, much like orphanages, were
often overcrowded and had high rates of illness, developmental delays, and mortality (Palacios &
Brodzinsky, 2010, p. 271). Together, cases such as these created a bad image for the adoption
and foster-care programs in the United States.
Globally, policies have changed based on governments. For example, before the 19th Century,
the United States had no legal system for adoption. If a child’s parents were deemed unfit to care
for the child, a family member or someone within the community would take on the
responsibility as caregiver. The first adoption law in the United States was passed in 1851 when
the state of Massachusetts legislated that judges should determine whether or not adoption was
necessary and if so, if a family was fit to adopt (The State Library of Massachusetts, 2015).
Historians make note of several possibilities as to why the law may have been passed in 1851,
such as legislative trends, securing rights to adopters, or securing rights to adoptees (Zainaldin,
p.1043-1044, 1979). However, “there is… no clear explanation for why the legislature passed the
law when it did” (Zainaldin, p.1043, 1979). The 20th century saw a peak in the creation of a
legal system for adoption, with the creation of various laws seeking to guarantee the rights and
best interests of the child. The Progressive Era, from 1890-1920, was when philanthropic women
reformers recognized injustices against children and lobbied for “measures to safeguard
children” (Carp, 2008). These reforms led to the enactment of several laws, including the
Children’s Code of Minnesota of 1917. This was the “first state law that required an
investigation to determine whether a proposed adoptive home was suitable for a child. The
statute also ordered that adoption records be closed to the public…” (Carp, 2008). Adoption law
developed extensively over the next decades. Near the close of the 20th Century the Family

Preservation & Family Support Act of 1993 was enacted with the purpose of preventing families
from losing their children due to cases such as abuse or neglect. Services are provided through
this law to communities labeled as at risk and are distributed throughout the 50 states (A. Ellett,
2014). Moreover, in the 21st Century adoption laws have continued to evolve based on the
changing needs of children. In 2014, the Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families
Act was put into place due to the increasing awareness of the human trafficking business and its
connection with vulnerable children. This act is an attempt of the U.S. Government to prevent
sex trafficking of foster/adopted youth by requiring:
“…the state plan for foster care and adoption assistance to demonstrate that the state
agency has developed policies and procedures for identifying, documenting in agency
records, and determining appropriate services with respect to, any child or youth over
whom the state agency has responsibility for placement, care, or supervision who the
state has reasonable cause to believe is, or is at risk of being, a victim of sex trafficking or
a severe form of trafficking in persons.” (H.R. 4980, 2014)
Although laws have improved, the issue of child welfare still remains.
Adoption as an International Concern
As international adoptions became more widespread due to events such as WWII, the Korean
War, and the Vietnam War, a need to address the legalities of these adoptions arose. Now not
only was there an issue of American adoption laws, but also the laws of the countries from which
children were being adopted. As Parra-Aranguren (1991) noted, the first attempt to establish
international legal standards for intercountry adoptions was undertaken around the 1960s (UN,
p.52). In 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by all except eight
nations. An article of particular importance to the welfare of mother and child is 25.2. This
article states that “Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All
children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection” (United
Nations, 1948). This was a prelude to the 1959 Declaration of the Rights of the Child.1 A
following provision was the 1961 United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness.
This convention addresses granting of nationality at birth, regulation on the loss or renunciation
of nationality, deprivation of nationality, transfer of territory, and rights of individuals under the
convention (The UN Refugee Agency, 2001). Currently, 55 countries have ratified the treaty and
are members of the convention. Additionally, in December 1946 UNICEF was created by the
UN to provide food, clothing, and health care to European children after WWII. Since then,
UNICEF has become a permanent part of the UN, with its specialization being advocacy for the
rights of children. In regard to adoption 2“UNICEF supports inter-country adoption, when
pursued in conformity with the standards and principles of the 1993 Hague Convention on
1 See the Declaration of the Rights of the Child (1959) for further information on specific rights given to children.
2 Nationality and identity are being addressed directly in this document. They are also already addressed in the UN’s
Declaration of the Rights of the Child Principle 3; Corresponding to Article 15 respectively on The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (1948).

Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Inter-country Adoptions” (UNICEF,
2014).
Holding its first meeting back in 1893, The Hague Conference on Private International Law was
created to “work for the progressive unification of the rules of private international law” (Hague
Conference on Private International Law, 2015). However, The Hague Conference, an
intergovernmental organization, was established permanently in 1955. The Conference holds
plenary sessions every four years to construct treaties that may be signed and/or ratified by
Hague members3. Held in 1993, the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Inter-
country Adoptions was the convention that addressed international adoption to protect the rights
and best interests of the child. This convention is also a major combatant of child trafficking
(Hague Conference on Private International Law, 1993).4
In 1986 the UN created an additional document just before the Hague Conference on
Intercountry Adoption, mentioned above. This document is titled “Declaration on Social and
Legal Principles Relating to the Protection and Welfare of Children, with Special Reference to
Foster Placement and Adoption, Nationally and Internationally.” Bartholet (1999) argued that the
document did not fully legitimize adoption, placing international adoption lower in the hierarchy
of approved options for children in need of homes than institutional care in their home countries
(as cited in Bartholet, p.113, 2005). Specifically, Article 17 states that if a child cannot be cared
for by a national foster or adoptive family or the country of origin, then international adoption
may be considered as an alternative (General Assembly, 1986). It was not until the Hague
Conference on Intercountry Adoption (1993) that international adoption was preferred over
institutional care in the child’s home country (Bartholet, p.113, 2005).
The United Nations and The Hague Conference were the pioneers for creating a legal realm for
adoption. This creation of policies adoptable by other countries to protect the rights of children
lead to a general agreement that unity between countries was needed in order to better protect
these rights. This is why organizations such as The United Nations and The Hague Conference
created political advocacy groups such as UNICEF and The 1993 Hague Convention.
The Current State of Adoption
The most recent development in adoption is a proposal by the Administration for Children and
Families (ACF) to amend the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System
(AFCARS) regulations in the United States (2014).
“This notice of proposed rulemaking… includes several new modifications to address
changes made by the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions Act of
3 In case of need,and Extraordinary Session may be held (hcch.net).
4 International Justice Mission addresses human trafficking in ijm.org. This organization combats all forms of
slavery and explains in detail the facts,the issue at hand, how they respond to the issue,other resources,as well as
provides related stories of survivors.Additionally, Holly Burkhalter discusses the issue ofchild trafficking in depth
in her article Sex Trafficking, Law Enforcement and Perpetrator Accountability (2012).

2008, such as collecting and reporting data related to the title IV–E guardianship
assistance program, sibling placement, the extension of title IV–E assistance to children
age 18 or older, educational stability plans and transition plans for children in foster care
and the inclusion of Tribal title IV–E agencies. Additionally, modifications were made to
address new requirements in the Preventing Sex Trafficking and Strengthening Families
Act, which was enacted on September 29, 2014 to include information on: Victims of sex
trafficking, children in foster care who are pregnant or parenting, and children in non-
foster family settings.” (Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System, 2015)
Each law that is put into place is done so for the sole purpose of ensuring the protection of
children. As mentioned earlier, the United States follows the guidelines of the Hague
Convention, protecting citizens of member countries. Citizens of nonmember countries are more
difficult to protect because they are not covered by law. The multitude of policies and laws
create many obstacles for adoptive families, making the process lengthy, costly, and strenuous.
The average cost of adoption is between $5,000-$40,000, depending on a number of factors,
including whether or not the family is working with a licensed adoption agency, an independent
agency, or a facilitated/unlicensed adoption. This price range also includes intercountry
adoptions. Public agencies, where children are adopted directly from foster care is much cheaper,
ranging anywhere from $0-$2,500. This is “so that final costs to parents are negligible”(Child
Welfare Information Gateway, p. 2-4, 2011). The average length of time for the completion of
the adoption process for countries who are members of the convention ranges between 1-1 ½
years (U.S. Department of State, p. 4, 2014a). No clear statistics are recorded for non-convention
countries on this issue. In the case of public agency adoptions, the average time from
termination of parental rights to adoption completion is 1-11 months. Some cases take much
longer, however, these are outliers and are not included in calculating the average (U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, p. 5, 2014).
As complicated as the adoption process is, it is important to take into account why these prices
are so high and the length of time so stretched. This is due to ensuring the safety of the child.
Prices could be lowered if home studies and social work services were eliminated. However, this
would be against the benefit of the child. Although the adoption process is not well-liked, the
United States has a duty of protecting the rights of the child and will take the necessary steps to
ensure this happens.
Latin America’s Position on Intercountry Adoption
There were not a large number of adoptions from Latin America until the 1980s. The increase in
adoptions from these countries was due to the decrease in availability of children from European
and Asian countries. Europe had begun to steady their economy and Asia’s birth rate decreased.
This led adopting countries, particularly the United States, to turn elsewhere, ultimately leading
to the increase in adoptions from Latin America. Due to adoptions only being a recent
phenomenon in Latin America, the majority of the countries lack international legislation and
policies on this issue (Pilotti, p.30, 1985).

It is difficult to make a generalization of Latin America’s position on intercountry adoption, as
each country differs in so many ways. Mary Ann McMillan (1993) notes the negative views
Latin America has on intercountry adoption due to its’ adverse reputation given by the press.
Such press includes the abuse of the adoption process with stories of people selling babies. As a
result, countries began creating more stringent adoption laws. (p.4-5).
“Colombia is representative of the international adoption process in Latin America. In
January 27, 1990, a new Colombian adoption law went into effect. The law eliminates
private adoption in favor of a system in which children may be placed for adoption only
through the Colombian Family Welfare Institute and approved Colombian adoption
agencies.” (McMillan, p. 5-6, 1993)
Latin America recognizes the need for homes for children without families. Much like the United
States, they want to ensure that children are being placed in safe environments and not being
trafficked. The best way to ensure this is to enforce that all adoptions must go through the
country’s government, which is what Colombia and many other Latin American countries have
done.
Evolution of Adoption in Latin America
Seized by the monarchs of Spain in 1492 in an attempt to search for gold, Latin America was
controlled by the Spanish Empire until 1898 (Comstock, 2015; New World Encyclopedia, 2014).
During this colonial period, adoption was both formal and informal. Some adoptions were
regulated by Spanish Law and others took place with no legal system involved (Leinaweaver, p.
6, 2009). This resembles kinship care in the United States. This informality meant that parental
ties were not completely severed. Still a form of adoption today, the relationship between kinship
caregivers and biological parents is more of a supportive one where kinship caregivers assume
parental roles and biological parents have the opportunity to visit their children whereas in a
legal adoption, parents’ rights would be terminated and visitation would be determined by the
adoptive parents (Leinaweaver, p.8, 2009). As referenced in Blum (1998), the Latin American
countries claimed independence from Spain and began creating their own civil codes to regulate
adoptions (Leinaweaver, p. 6, 2009).
After achieving independence, the Latin American country of Honduras was in a state of turmoil
for many years. For two-hundred years there were so many internal conflicts that there was never
enough stability in a governmental organization for adoption laws to be created (Library of
Congress, 1993). It was not until 1984 that the Family Code was created, including articles
addressing adoption within Honduras. For example, the age of the adoptive parents, the age of
the child in relation to children already in the adoptive family household, and the attainment of a
follow up certification from a U.S. adoption agency who is licensed and registered with the
Instituto Hondureño de la Niñez y la Familia (IHNFA), “a social welfare agency charged by the
Honduran government with overseeing local and international adoptions” (U.S. Embassy, 2015).

As mentioned previously, Americans did not begin adopting from Latin America until the 1980s.
The Central American Crisis, a series of events that occurred during the late 1970s including the
creation of the Batallion 316 in Honduras5, the Nicaraguan Revolution, the Salvadoran Civil
War, and the Guatemalan Civil War left the area war struck (The Center for Justice and
Accountability, 2014). The Central American countries were in desperate need of assistance with
their children who were left without parents. This was the leading factor in the increase of
adoptions from the Latin American countries to the United States as the flow of adoption
decreased from Europe and Asia.
Mexico, a part of Latin America and also previously ruled by Spain but more stable than Central
America, implemented its first adoption law in the 1917 Law of Family Relations. Specifically,
Article 20 states that children who do not have parents shall be placed in kinship care, or, if no
family is available, the judge would be responsible for placing the child into a family (Ley Sobre
Relaciones Familiares, 1917). This law was implemented due to the recognition of a large
number of children being trafficked and sold for manual labor (Blum, p.249, 1998). Adoption
was again addressed in the 1928 Federal Civil Code. The 1917 and 1928 laws gave no rights to
adoptive parents or children, however, after being modified, in 1970, the Civil Code allowed the
adopted child to take the name of the adoptive parents (Código Civil Federal, 2013).
Many Latin American countries have become members of the Hague Conference to ensure that
the rights of children are protected. Although Honduras is not a member, it has ratified the
international adoption convention. A further look at the rulings of the convention will be done in
the future to determine if it will be signed. Mexico, however, has ratified and signed the
international adoption convention (U.S. Department of State, 2014a). Therefore, the United
Nations is responsible for ensuring the protection of all adopted children from and within
Mexican borders.
Mexico
Since the 1980s, Mexico has continued adoption policymaking. For example, after ratifying the
1993 Hague Convention, Mexico proceeded to write the Federal Civil Code of 1998. This Code
contains provisions for kinship, domestic, and international adoptions (Instituto de
Investigaciones Juridicas, 2015). Many reforms have been made since then, including the
elimination of articles dealing with kinship adoption that were deemed no longer needed (Garcia,
p.178, 2013). The most recent changes to the Civil Code include the ability of multiple
governmental organizations to complete psychological and socioeconomic studies on national
adoptions (Garcia, p. 178-179, 2013)6. This will help researchers better understand the lives of
5 With the communist Sandanista government in Nicaragua and the outbreak of the Nicaraguan civil war, the U.S.
poured military aid into Honduras,creating Batallion 316 for the sole purpose of a covert war against communism.
6 Governmental organizations include la Secretaria de Salud, el Sistema para el Desarrollo Integral de la Familia del
Distrito Federal, el Tribunal Superior de Justicia del Distrito Federal, y la Procuraduría General de Justicia del
Distrito Federal

Mexican children who are adopted so that future provisions can be made that better serve the
needs of these children.
The current process of adopting a child from Mexico has been shaped by the Mexican law
through the years. “Because Mexico is party to the Hague Convention, adoptions from Mexico
must follow a specific process designed to meet the Convention’s requirements (U.S.
Department of State, 2014b). In descending order, a prospective adoptive family must choose a
U.S. accredited or approved adoption service provider, apply to the United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS) to be found eligible to adopt, be matched with a child in Mexico,
apply to USCIS for the child to be found eligible for immigration to the United States and
receive U.S. agreement to proceed with the adoption, adopt (or obtain legal custody) of the child
in Mexico, and obtain a U.S. immigrant visa for the child and bring him/her home.7
Honduras
Since its adoption of the 1984 Family Code, Honduras has amended articles several times. For
example, the age requirement for adoptive parents of children from Honduras is now 25 rather
than 30; if not capable of providing education and basic life needs (i.e., food, water, and shelter),
then parents can legally put their children up for adoption, and; it is prohibited for parents or
guardians, or any other person, to receive money for the adoption of a child (Corte Suprema de
Justicia, 1992).
Due to its non-membership of the 1993 Hague Convention, Honduras has not created new laws
on adoption as a result of the Convention in the same way as Mexico. Honduras’ current state of
adoption law
“…is currently in flux. Policies regarding eligibility requirements for prospective
adoptive parents, residency requirements, and time frame are under review by the
Honduran Family Court (IHNFA). Any change on the family code regarding all the
above must be done by the Congress, not the family court, they can only give their
opinion. This has been under review for more than 8 years,…however, it remains the
same.” (U.S. Department of State, 2010)
Likewise, its non-membership of the 1993 Hague Convention means that the country does not
have to follow a strict process that meets the guidelines of the Convention. The current process
requires that the prospective adoptive family choose an adoption service provider, apply to be
found eligible to adopt, be matched with a child, adopt the child in Honduras, apply for the child
7 For more information on the steps to take when adopting a child from Mexico, visit the U.S. Department of State’s
website at http://travel.state.gov/content/adoptionsabroad/en/country-information/learn-about-a-country/mexico.html

to be found eligible for adoption, and finally, to bring the child home (U.S. Department of State,
2010)8.
Conclusion
Over the years child welfare and adoption laws have improved extensively. Differing from
country to country, the laws reflect the views of the governments and are influenced by events
such as wars and children’s rights abuses. Organizations such as the United Nations and the
Hague Conference dedicate their existence to ensuring the welfare of their members. More and
more countries are recognizing the needs for child welfare provision and are ratifying policies.
The United States has extensive laws on adoption and the protection of the child. Due to
international adoption being a recent phenomenon, countries such as Mexico and Honduras do
not have as extensive policies as the United States on international adoptions but have begun to
take steps in that direction. These governments are in the process of creating further provisions in
order to protect the rights of their children both domestically and internationally. The ultimate
goal is to ensure the safety of children and provide them with loving homes.
8 For more information on the steps to take when adopting a child from Honduras,visit the U.S. Department of
State’s website at http://travel.state.gov/content/adoptionsabroad/en/country-information/learn-about-a-
country/honduras.html

ICA Research Paper

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to ICA Research Paper

ICA Research Paper