Opinion: The children are not alright: Making the case for the reversal of Russia’s international adoption ban

As reported by The Guardian, Americans have consistently led other developed nations as the largest recipients of international adoptions, with over 60,000 Russian children found homes with American families between 1992 and 2012. However, the Russian Adoption ban signed into law by President Vladimir Putin in December 2012 disrupted the trajectory of thousands of children in the process of securing permanent homes. The halt in the adoption process leaves innocent children at the mercy of government-controlled institutions such as orphanages, baby homes and foster care. Is it time to reconsider this contentious law? The unequivocal answer is yes. By restricting the opportunity to place some of Russia’s most vulnerable children in caring American households, the Russian government hinders these children from obtaining a stable family environment with international families.

Russia’s landmark decision to enact a sweeping ban on most international adoptions primarily targeted United States citizens in response to the US Magnitsky Act, which imposed sanctions on Russian nationals during a politically volatile and contentious period. The Russian Duma enacted sanctions, opting to halt a more poignant export — adoptions — instead of freezing assets. Preserved in the Dima Yakovlev Law, the ban was named after the young Russian boy who tragically passed away at the age of 21 months, shortly after arriving in the United States with his adoptive family from Virginia. The child’s untimely death was linked to heatstroke, as he was reportedly left unattended in a sweltering parked car by his adoptive U.S. father. While undoubtedly devastating, Russia utilized the incident as a primary justification for executing the law. However, political tensions indicate the law was implemented as a retaliatory measure against the United States Magnitsky Act.

The ban was subsequently extended to include 26 additional countries, cited by Russian lawmakers as “Unfriendly Countries,” rendering many Russian children with no alternatives. International adoptions promised to provide hopeful futures for countless Russian children who were left stranded amidst the adoption ban and forced to remain under state care. Ultimately, the ban sparked widespread outrage among dissidents of the law and advocacy among sympathizers of the law, igniting global discussion.

Weighing the pros and cons of the Dima Yakovlev Law

The implementation of the Dima Yakovlev Law has raised a significant debate, eliciting stark reactions from proponents and critics.

The pros

Supporters of the ban emphasize its role in upholding Russia’s national sovereignty and exercising control over its adoption processes. Central to their stance is the belief that the ban serves as a protective measure, aiming to prevent potential abuse, neglect, and harm that Russian children might face in foreign adoptive homes. Advocates argue that maintaining national pride ensures orphaned children retain their cultural and historical roots. Additionally, proponents have highlighted concerns over the international adoption process, enabling the adoption industry to profit from practices of abuse, human trafficking, baby farming, and improper regulation. Further, many Russian supporters question the strong desire for Americans to adopt children from overseas when there are thousands of children awaiting adoption within the US, suggesting factors such as the age and race of the children play a role.

Moreover, proponents dispute that the ban creates opportunities for increased domestic adoption within Russia, introducing a sense of responsibility among Russian families to address the needs of neglected and orphaned children within their own country. Some supporters also view the ban as a justified response to the contentious Magnitsky Act, which imposed sanctions on Russian officials accused of human rights violations. 

The cons

Advocates pushing for the immediate reversal of the adoption ban highlight its profound impact on thousands of infants and children confined to inadequately managed government institutions, including orphanages, baby homes, and foster care. As a result, the ban has detrimentally affected children’s well-being, health, social development, and education. Moreover, opponents posit that the ban violates children’s rights, emphasizing that children should not become political tools and casualties in disputes between nations, citing the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Additionally, the ban has eliminated adoption opportunities for those with disabilities, older children (teens) and sibling groups, who traditionally face challenges in securing permanent homes both domestically and internationally.

The strained diplomatic relations between Russia and affected nations, notably the United States, are engaging in a political game of chicken rather than making a genuine effort to address the interest and welfare of adopted children. Critics argue that the ban hindered collaborative efforts between governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to improve adoption protocols and enhance the well-being of adopted children.

The state of Russian state care

The majority of Russian orphanages fail to meet basic standards of care, increasingly endangering the welfare of countless Russian children. On the surface, these Russian orphanages seem like a “step up.” However, the orphanage system routinely fails, depriving such children of fundamental physical needs, medical care, and a safe place for proper psychological development, growth and care. While these facilities aim to assist the children in their care, they face several shortcomings, including severe and sustained malnourishment, intestinal disorders, skin diseases and unsanitary, unsafe and unstable environments. Psychological stress has even associated with stunted growth, affecting approximately 30% of children in one study of Russian orphans. Additionally, many of these children develop troubling behavioral issues such as attachment disorders due to a lack of healthy long-term human connection and interactions, severely limiting cognitive capabilities and social skills to be functioning members of society. Along with these conditions, a significant portion of the children in these institutions are labeled as “social orphans,” indicating that their parents are alive. However, due to specific circumstances such as illness, disability, financial hardship or even abandonment, they are unable to care for their children.

Adding to the slew of injustices, these institutions are egregiously underfunded with low-paid care workers, resulting in high turnover rates, and impeding orphans’ ability to develop healthy, meaningful relationships and strong interpersonal skills. The limitations of Russian state care are even more alarming for ill and or disabled children, as many of these children are physically and or mentally challenged, leading to segregation and discrimination among care workers and peers, hampering their welfare development. Cultural stigmas from the Soviet era still hold, placing significance on the competency and efficiency of workers as a gauge of a person’s “worth” or value to society and the state. It’s unsurprising many of these antiquated attitudes still linger today, leaving an undeniable “stain” on the system, as caregivers ignore disabled children, leaving them confined to beds and couches, often in uncomfortable and dangerous positions for hours. Fortunately, Americans tend to have more accepting and accommodating attitudes toward individuals with disabilities as well as the economic means and resources to support and care for such children. 

The Fight to Form Families: What Can Be Done?

While both sides can argue they have the best intentions for the child in mind, Russia continues to exhibit negative qualities. Corruption continues to plague the social welfare system, with “fees” and donations associated with international adoption as an opportunity for corruption and trafficking. Profiteering presents issues as families who are well-meaning, willing and financially able to pay the exuberant costs to adopt a child from abroad as nefarious individuals exploit a family’s compassion and kindness and make an improper, unethical and illegal “profit.” While the adoption ban eliminates the opportunity for officials to profit from American families financially, it does nothing to resolve the pervasive corruption entirely, as people from other countries can still adopt children from Russia, as most corruption transpires on the Russian end of the adoption process. While the Dima Yakovlev case was extreme and isolated, it should not detract from the numerous success stories.

Rather than imposing a blanket ban on all American adoptions, a more practical solution is to implement a rigorous screening process for prospective American families and orphanage officials managing each case. Examining the aftermath of Romania’s 2005 international adoption ban underscores the distressing effects of malnourished children living in deplorable conditions, stressing the need for potent social welfare progress and state care for orphaned children. Neglecting minor issues can lead to long-term tragedies for Russian children. Combating corruption in international adoption requires global collaboration. The Hague Convention and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child are implementing guidelines for more ethical and strategic adoption procedures, prioritizing the child’s genuine interests.