Corps de l’article

As an institution that promotes family ties, adoption involves a broad range of actors and raises a number of social, legal and family issues. Adoption practices and laws evolve over time and represent a dynamic space that reflects the changing nature of kinship, of the family and of children. Adoption practices reflect specific concepts of the child (Ricard, 2014), who may be a legal subject, a member of a family unit or group, a person to be protected or a social being in the care of a community (Ouellette et Lavallée, 2017). The ways in which adoption is used reveal a society’s values and ideological positions on the concept of filiation, as well as the degree of flexibility that a society allows in tracing family affiliations (Lavallée et Ouellette, 2020). It is not surprising, therefore, that adoption is a subject of study at the intersection of several disciplines, including law, anthropology, sociology, psychology and social work.

This thematic issue explores various aspects of adoption in order to foster an understanding of the ways in which it has changed over time. The articles focus on identifying the evolution of certain social and legal practices in adoption, and discuss the family and identity realities associated with this institution. Adoption is approached as a process of filiation, a mechanism for protecting children, and a bond of belonging that fosters inter- and intrafamily emotional ties, as well as being a pathway to a family project that presents challenges of its own.

Decline in adoptions

One major change that has been observed is that international adoptions began to decline significantly in the early 2000s, both in Quebec (MSSS, 2021) and in other parts of the world (Selman, 2023). The ratification of the Hague Convention on May 29, 1993 (HCCH, 1993) prioritized the retention of children within their families and their communities of origin. The Hague Convention reconfigured the international adoption process through the application of its principle of double subsidiarity by the majority of countries (Piché et Vargas-Diaz, 2019; Piché, 2021). This shift is closely linked not only to the drop in international adoptions, but also to the development of local alternatives to transferring large numbers of children abroad, a trend that predominated from the last half of the century until the early 2000s.

Although not as notable as this global trend, the number of adoptions carried out in the context of youth protection has also decreased over the past fifteen years. [1] This can be observed in Quebec as well as in other countries, including Spain and Great Britain, that use adoption to rescue children from abusive situations and that have child protection services (Palacios et al. , 2019).

The Hague Convention, which established international standards for intercountry adoptions, undoubtedly played a significant role in their decline. The more general decrease in adoptions in Western countries can be explained by the drop in unwanted pregnancies, the rise in fertility problems (physiological or social), the use of assisted reproduction as a means of access to parenthood, and greater social tolerance of single mothers and children born out of wedlock (Pösö et Skivenes, 2021; Potter et Font, 2021).

Adoption models and their implications

The existence of many adoption models, and more broadly the care and movement of children, raise questions about the place and role of the various actors within these models, as well as the norms and practices that frame them. What similarities exist between simple adoption, full adoption, intrafamily adoption, open adoption and adoption in which the bond of filiation is preserved? How can these models coexist and what issues are associated with them? Various anthropological and sociological studies have illustrated the diversity of adoption practices through the concepts of fostering, transfer, confiage, giving and the movement of children (Asselin, 2021; Bowie, 2004; Tanguy-Domingos, 2021). Adoption can be seen as a way of fulfilling the desire to have a child in the face of infertility, which is often the case in many Western societies. However, it can also take more flexible forms in other social and cultural contexts and assume functions that are not directly related to the desire for a child and the parental project. For example, children may be transferred from one family to another in order to redress inequalities in fertility between related couples, or it may be done to ensure a better education or career opportunities for children in the extended family (Lallemand, 2004). In African and South Pacific societies, adoption practices may be used to ensure the succession or transfer of property or as a way of expressing or strengthening pre-existing bonds of friendship (Fine, 2000).

The article by Louise Proctar addresses this multi-model perspective. Basing her work on a study of two Pacific societies, Proctar discusses informal intrafamily adoption practices and points out both the flexibility and the structure associated with this type of child support. In contrast to the adoption model commonly used in the West, where legal recognition is crucial for establishing adoptive filiation, in the societies studied by the author it is the processes of everyday relationships (through actions, time and discourse) that create the bonds of kinship and adoption.

Simple adoption in France is also an alternative adoption model, with certain parameters that contrast with the full adoption model that predominates in many Western societies. Simple adoption favours an additive rather than a substitutive logic: it creates a new filiation link in addition to the original link. This form of adoption is mainly used in the context of step-parenting for the purpose of wealth transfer (Mignot, 2015).

Guillaume Kessler ’s article focuses on the usage and practices of simple adoption in France, which is the model mostly employed by the spouse of a parent to strengthen and legalize a long-standing relationship. Kessler raises the possibility of extending the use of simple adoption to other situations that reflect the evolution of family issues and the diversity of family configurations. He believes that a more efficient use of simple adoption would lead to a better match between a child’s legal status and practical reality.

Kessler’s work contributes to a broader discussion on recognizing multi-kinship and questioning an adoption model that relies on reproduction and the principle of exclusivity. To date, Western legislators remain reluctant to go beyond the normative framework and give legal recognition to more than two parents (Ouellette et Lavallée, 2015; Roy, 2018 ). There continues to be a gap between contemporary parenting practices and restrictive legal provisions. Full adoption is definitive and irreversible, which meets the needs of some children, such as those who were adopted at a very young age, who have little knowledge of their parents of origin and no significant relationship with them. However, this type of adoption may not be in the best interests of all adoptees, such as older children or those who have maintained ties to their parents of origin ( Groupe de travail sur le régime québécois de l’adoption et Lavallée, 2007; Ouellette et Roy, 2010).

Adoption for child protection

In some countries, child protection services use adoption as an option for safeguarding children who are victims of abuse. However, measures, laws and practices relating to this type of adoption vary considerably from one country to another (del Valle et Bravo, 2013). For example, Norway, Denmark, Germany, France and Belgium do not encourage the adoption of children who require protection. On the other hand, countries such as the United States, Great Britain, Ireland, Australia and Spain are more likely to employ adoption for certain children who are at high risk of abandonment or who cannot be returned to their home environment. These children are rarely adopted at birth and usually spend several months or even years in foster care before being considered adoptable (Ouellette et Goubau, 2009; Chateauneuf et Lessard, 2015; Nadeem et al. , 2023). In these cases, a child who has been removed from their parents and taken into state custody is placed with prospective adoptive parents and then adopted, with or without the consent of the parents of origin (Pösö et Skivenes, 2021).

The article by Karine Tremblay and Geneviève Pagé identifies the challenges of adopting children who have significant relational, behavioural or emotional problems. The authors focus specifically on children adopted in Quebec by foster-to-adopt families, and emphasize the distress and powerlessness that some parents feel due to the many difficulties and traumas that their adopted children experience. Their findings also highlight the difficulties some children face in the care of child protection services. S.L. Smith (2014) estimates that 10-15% of child protection adoptions present significant challenges for adoptive parents. Other authors have noted that children who have had prior traumatic experiences, such as physical, psychological or sexual abuse, have caused stress, depression and secondary trauma in their adoptive parents ( Guivarch et al. , 2017; Skandrani et Harf, 2022).

Support and guidance during the adoption process

An analysis of the interventions and the organization of adoption services provides a better understanding of how parents of origin, adoptive parents and children are supported through this process (Waid et Alewine, 2018; Lee et al. , 2020). What clinical and practical challenges do professionals and organizations face when addressing the needs of those involved in an adoption? What types of resources, training or intervention programs are available to help them?

Tremblay and Pagé discuss the specific difficulties raised by the adoption process in terms of services and interventions. Adoption, whether international or local, can be challenging for some families. Many adopted children have complex emotional, behavioural, developmental or health problems that can occur at various times, even years after adoption ( Fisher, 2015; Lee et al. , 2018; Skandrani et Harf, 2022 ). Adopted children are more vulnerable than non-adopted children, as has been demonstrated by many studies (Askeland et al. , 2017; Jones et al. , 2020). A lack of support and services after adoption can threaten the continuity and stability of the adoption project and have negative effects on the family dynamic. In this sense, access to services and various forms of post-adoption support plays a key role not only in sustaining adoptions, but also in the quality of the care provided to children and the overall trajectory of adoptive families in the longer term ( Zosky et al. , 2005; Merritt et Festinger, 2013; White, 2016).

It also seems increasingly appropriate to view adoption not as a finality or a one-time event, but rather as a dynamic process that continues to evolve throughout a lifetime (Grotevant et McDermott, 2014). Therefore, post-adoption services should be provided by professionals trained in adoption issues to enable adoptive families to have their needs met in a timely manner. This should include the provision of services to adoptees even when they are adults (Sánchez-Sandoval et al. , 2020).

The right of adoptees to know their origins

The question of origins is central in studies and reflections on adoption (Martial et al. , 2021). The lifting of secrecy and the shift toward transparency in the adoption process are reflected in different ways in both practice and law. In some contexts, this trend is manifested in the use of more open adoption models. This is the case, for example, in certain situations where the parents of origin have given their consent to the adoption, or when the adoption process involves parties who know each other or who have a positive relationship. Another factor in using open adoption may be the child's own wishes when they are of age to decide. In all cases, creating a climate of consensus promotes a more open adoption model (Neil, 2019).

In its broadest definition, open adoption implies sharing information between the adoptive family and the biological family, to the extent that each deems appropriate (Brodzinsky et Goldberg, 2016; Chateauneuf et al. , 2018; Neil, 2018). The methods of sharing take many forms, including face-to-face meetings, phone calls, and exchanging cards, photos, letters or emails. Furthermore, open adoption involves not only such contacts, but also concerns the ability of adoptive parents to create an open dialogue within the family regarding the issues, emotions and questions related to the adoption (Wydra et al. , 2012; Colaner, 2022). Brodzinsky (2005) makes a distinction between structural and communication openness. Structural openness comprises the type, frequency, duration and management of contacts, thus essentially the modalities of contact. Communication openness concerns the general attitudes, beliefs, expectations and feelings that people have about adoption. It involves the dialogue that is established between the adoptive parents and the child, as well as their ability to handle the various aspects of adoption with ease. The studies conducted on these subjects mostly point to the positive impacts and beneficial effects of greater openness in maintaining forms of contact post-adoption (Smith et al. , 2020; del Pozo de Bolger et al. , 2021; MacDonald, 2023). However, contact with parents of origin in the cases of children who have had pre-adoption experiences of abuse or neglect remains more controversial. Some studies argue that in these situations, direct contact with the parents of origin can be traumatic for the child and can affect their development and well-being ( Howe et Steel, 2004; Loxterkamp, 2009; Faulkner et Madden, 2012) .

In some cases, lifting the veil of secrecy results in adult adoptees researching their roots. Indeed, we can see a growing desire among adoptees to have the right to access information about their origins, in order to establish both their identity and their peace of mind (Moyer et Juang, 2011; Barroso et Barbosa-Ducharne, 2019 ; Salvo-Agoglia et Marre, 2020). Issues related to the continuity of emotional, identity, cultural and social ties to one’s origins are increasingly being addressed by associations of adult adoptees (Gay, 2018). In many countries, there is a trend toward greater openness and recognition of the right to know one’s birth family (Jeannin et Roulez, 2019; Giroux et Brunet, 2021). This is reflected in the application of legislative measures or reforms to facilitate access to information on origins and allow for family reunion (Comité consultatif sur le droit de la famille et Roy, 2015). On the other hand, the search for one’s roots, in both domestic and international adoption, presents its share of obstacles for the adoptee. The quality of record keeping and archiving varies considerably from one era and country to another; irregularities in adoption procedures may be observed in registers; actors may be confronted with conflicting information or even be denied contact by one of the parties, adding insult to injury. In addition, it can be hard to reconcile adoptees’ demands for knowledge about their origins with the conditions of access to information in their files. This is due to legal frameworks and cultural perceptions that safeguard confidentiality in many countries (Jeannin et Roulez, 2019). There are a number of factors that can make it difficult for adoptees to find a family member or to fill in the facts of their history. When reunions are made possible, the lack of access to appropriate psychosocial support can be a major challenge, considering that these meetings can be destabilizing for the parties involved or may be poorly planned. The contexts of disclosure, such as individual self-determination, the impact of revelation and the right to know versus the right to confidentiality, make evident the various ethical issues and tensions involved in the tracing and reunion process (Koh et Reamer, 2021).

In their article, Irene Salvo-Agoglia and Soledad Gesteira discuss naming practices in the context of adoption in Argentina and Chile. They show how maintaining, changing or combining first and last names are part of a dynamic process of identity construction. They approach the act of naming, and especially renaming, as a way for adoptees to assert their identity and position themselves in relation to their kinship. A study of adults who were adopted between 1965 and 1996 describes a particular socio-historical and political environment that was shaped, among other things, by the dictatorship in Argentina and by irregular or even illegal adoption practices. Illegal adoptions generally do not aim to optimize the development and best interests of the child. Rather, they involve concealment or appropriation by adults ( Denéchère et Macedo, 2023 ). In some cases, these adoptions are completely illegal, while in others, they are carried out through legal channels, but evade the ethical obligations generally associated with them (Baglietto et al. , 2016). This type of adoption does not fulfil its primary obligation: to protect the right of children to have their family relationships recognized, a right that is an integral part of an individual’s development (Baglietto et al. , 2022). This reminds us that adoption can embody an imbalance of power and be used as a means of reinforcing certain social and national policies, as well as a way of controlling births (Swain, 2021).

Methods of accessing and tracing one’s origins have multiplied over the past few years. The opening up of formal access to information in institutions is now accompanied by informal methods that were previously non-existent or less commonly used, such as DNA testing (Casas, 2018; May et Grotevant, 2018) and social networks (Black et al. , 2016; Skandrani et al. , 2020 ; Thomson-Sweeny, 2021). It is not uncommon for one or more family members to utilize both official and informal research channels to access information about their roots. These contacts without intermediaries have certain advantages, but they can also be destabilizing and cause stress in the lives of the actors concerned as they seek to establish their identity. Considering the growing presence of these genetic and digital communication technologies in our societies, it is essential to understand how they are used by adoptees to identify their biological kinship, geographic origins and cultural heritage, as well as the implications for their family, their identity and their emotions (Siegel, 2012; Lord, 2018; Shier, 2021).

Adoption and assisted reproduction

The use of assisted reproduction seems to be the source of various trends associated with adoption (Martial et al. , 2021). On the one hand, it allows parents to opt for the medical route to parenting and undoubtedly contributes to the drop in the number of adoptions (Ramirez-Galvez, 2014; Potter et Font, 2021; Molina, 2022). In other situations, assisted reproduction is used in tandem with adoption, and serves mainly to ensure the legal recognition of a parent who would otherwise have none (Roy, 2007; Malmquist, 2015).

In their article, Kévin Lavoie, Isabel Côté and Sophie Doucet discuss the process leading to parenthood for couples using surrogacy. They show the complexity of the legal, social and family issues that arise for the actors involved in this type of parental project. They also demonstrate how adoption can be used as a strategy for parental recognition, which in turn reveals a particular concept of kinship, motherhood and filiation. Adoption in the context of surrogacy and assisted reproduction also illustrates how legislation and the legal framework of adoption practices can be crucial in the legal definition of kinship.

Thus, adoption and assisted reproduction represent a focal point where legal, medical and family considerations intersect. Cases in which adoption is used for the purpose of parental recognition mainly involve heterosexual or homosexual couples who have resorted to a third party to carry out their parental project, or a situation in which one of the intended parents is not legally recognized.

Conclusion

Adoption has a range of uses that have evolved historically and geographically, and it occurs in various family, legal and societal contexts. Despite a decline in the number of adoptions, both nationally and internationally, the challenges posed by adoption remain relevant, as family dynamics and family ties continue to change. The use of adoption alongside assisted reproduction, of genetic testing to learn about one’s origins, and of social media in the search for relatives are transforming the institution of adoption. A growing demand for greater flexibility in parental roles and status is also contributing to changes in the practices that characterize it.

Adoption is still viewed as a family institution established to promote the best interests and well-being of the child (Lavallée, 2005). Beyond this consensus on its guiding principles, adoption also demands that a balance be found between the rights, goals and concerns of children, parents of origin and adopters. The ethical challenges that emerge are many. For example, in international adoption, the transfer of children from disadvantaged to “rich” countries has already been the subject of numerous criticisms and is an underlying reason for the implementation of the Hague Convention (Rotabi et Gibbons, 2012; Piché, 2021). This international convention aims to protect children and their families from child trafficking and the risks of illegal adoptions, and allows abandoned or neglected children to grow up in their country of origin, protecting their family ties and cultural identity as much as possible. However, there remains an unconscionable number of children who are left in institutions, who will never be either adopted or reintegrated into their families and who will never benefit from a stable emotional family environment (Piché, 2021).

On a smaller scale, questions and ethical considerations are also being raised about the use of adoption in child protection systems. Although several studies have reported on the stability and permanence of adoption projects for abused or neglected children in the care of child protection systems (Vinnerljung et Hjern, 2011; Rolock et White, 2016; Lindner et Hanlon, 2024), some questions remain: Should we give priority to an adoption project without the consent of the parents? Does the use of adoption in this situation reflect a lack of support and services for parents of origin? Are interventions with vulnerable families implemented early enough to help prevent family breakups? Finally, does a refusal to recognize alternatives to full adoption limit the possibilities of meeting the needs of some of these children?

The decline in the number of domestic and international adoptions also deserves investigation. Are the best interests of children really being served? In many situations, adoption remains underutilized compared to other arrangements for fostering, placing or caring for children. Despite the challenges it poses, adoption remains an institution that creates filial and family ties that generate significant benefits for both children and families. All in all, it is surprising that in some cases other types of placement are preferred that do not provide the same level of legal and emotional stability for the child.

It would be worthwhile to continue to follow the evolution and uses of adoption in the coming decades. The various examples reported and discussed in the articles in this issue illustrate the persistence of challenges that should certainly be the subject of further study and reflection. It is hoped that this issue will contribute to both ongoing and future studies.