Not all disasters are equal

Disasters are prevalent (Cameron et al., Reference Cameron, Mitra, Fitzgerald, Scheinkestel, Stripp and Batey2009; Leivesley, Reference Leivesley1980; Margesson and Taft-Morales, Reference Margesson and Taft-Morales2010; Nicolas et al., Reference Nicolas, Schwartz, Pierre, Kalayjian, Eugene and Reyes2009; UN/ISDR, 2007) and have differential impact within and across nations. In affluent, developed nations, infrastructure that supports disaster preparedness and recovery may ameliorate the impact of disaster. Poorer nations exposed to the full brunt of disaster may struggle to absorb foreign aid and humanitarian assistance in disaster recovery. The impact of disaster on populations within nations also varies: with the poor, disenfranchised, disabled, women, the very young and older people being most vulnerable during and after disaster (Alam, Reference Alam2010; Enarson and Phillips, Reference Enarson, Phillips, Phillips and Morrow2008). Reflecting the flow of children in adoption generally, in which the children of poor parents are transferred to more affluent families, only certain disasters see children removed for adoption. Historically, children most vulnerable to this intervention are those in poor countries where established ICA networks can quickly facilitate new adoptions and expedite those in process (Dambach and Baglietto, Reference Dambach and Baglietto2010; Fronek and Cuthbert, Reference Fronek and Cuthbert2012). Under such circumstances, it is questionable whether the adoption of children is so much a humanitarian response to disaster as an opportunity for expedited and increased flows of children. The dynamics of global power, economics and race at work in ICA come starkly into view when consideration is given to the circumstances in which one disaster – such as the Haitian earthquake in 2010 – might serve as an opportunity for the mass removal of children for adoption, while in other disasters – such as the extended earthquake crisis on New Zealand's South Island continuing since late 2010 – the post-disaster care of children proceeds without any question of permanent removal from their devastated and displaced families and communities.

Children in war-torn Vietnam, post-Ceausescu Romania, and post-earthquake Haiti were subject to mass removal by foreigners for adoption. It is unthinkable that foreign groups or individuals might ‘rescue’ children impacted by disasters in the west by removing them and placing them with adoptive families overseas. It is unimaginable that US children affected by Hurricane Katrina in 2005, or Australian children displaced by the catastrophic bushfires in the Australian state of Victoria in 2009 or by the floods which inundated the states of Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria in 2010–11 might be airlifted from their communities for adoption by foreigners. Why, therefore, does the permanent removal of children from disasters in poor nations appear acceptable? In more developed nations, different considerations pertain. For example, a priority for children separated from their legal guardians immediately post-Katrina was reunification (despite criticism of post-Katrina management). In the 2011 Australian floods, where the scale of the recovery was likened to the aftermath of war, the immediate post-disaster focus was on building community resilience (ABC, 2011; Brandenburg et al., Reference Brandenburg, Watkins, Brandenburg and Schieche2007). Both implicitly and explicitly, keeping children in these communities is considered central to the task of re-building. Yet, in poor countries, adoption remains coupled with humanitarianism (ISS, 2010: 9) and presents as a valid – even worthy – response to children in disaster.

The persistence of child rescue narratives

Interventions by adoption agencies and individuals remain problematic in post-disaster ICA. In these situations, there is little evidence of critically reflective practice that might better inform future approaches to ICA (Bergquist, Reference Bergquist2009; Brookfield, Reference Brookfield2009; Fronek, Reference Fronek2012). In disasters, there is frequently a failure of governments and legal systems including international legal frameworks to respond appropriately. Consequently, inadequate attention is paid to crucial child welfare issues in the face of attempts to remove children from disaster zones for adoption. In several well-publicised incidents, people engaged in child trafficking in disaster zones have been pardoned and released (Rotabi and Bergquist, Reference Rotabi and Bergquist2010). Further, the language used to describe serious breaches of law with respect to child removal for adoption minimises the illegality, referring to ‘scandals’ or ‘scams’ rather than crimes. Each disaster, man-made or otherwise, creates circumstances perceived as exceptional and thereby justifying extraordinary action by those who promote adoption. The notion of ‘exception’ creates the slippery slope that allows the dismantling of safeguards, legitimises the expedition of adoption processes and bends rules despite advice from international organisations to the contrary (Doyle, Reference Doyle2010; UNICEF, 2009; UNICEF, 2010; ISS, 2010). In contrast with disaster in more developed countries, heightened disaster and rescue discourses work to create a homogenously apocalyptic view of the disaster zone as a place where no care for children appears possible: effectively all or many children are viewed as ‘orphans’ in need of rescue (and available for adoption). The people, culture and nation caught up in disaster are represented as wholly dysfunctional: and the child in disaster is seen as isolated, disconnected from family, caregivers, peers and community.

The Machel Report (UN, Reference Machel1996) outlines harms for children separated from caregivers and evacuated during crises, including exploitation on the adoption market. In the event of imminent danger, the report recommends families be evacuated rather than separating children from caregivers. UNICEF, UNHCR, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Hague Conference on Private International Law, the International Committee of the Red Cross and international NGOs such as the Save the Children Alliance and International Social Service share views on ICA post-disaster as outlined by UNICEF:

The position of UNICEF and other organisations on ICA are denigrated as ‘anti-adoption’ by those with vested interests in the promotion of less regulated ICA (Fronek, Reference Fronek, Spark and Cuthbert2009; Bartholet, Reference Bartholet2010; Fronek and Tilse, Reference Fronek and Tilse2010; Poe, Reference Poe2010). ICA in disaster situations seems to operate in a privileged space beyond law and standard adoption practices: its assumed inherent good remains unquestioned by proponents. History shows that disasters open doors for criminal and unethical activities. As with prevention strategies that aim to address causal issues that separate families in the first instance (Fronek and Cuthbert, Reference Fronek and Cuthbert2012), the child welfare literature that emphasises care in the context of families and communities bears little relationship to post-disaster adoption practice.

Pro-adoption discourse assumes that harms experienced by children adopted post-disaster are less, if they exist at all, than those to which children may be exposed through staying in a disaster zone (Kelley, Reference Kelley2010). In rescue discourse, no alternatives to child removal for adoption are offered. Whether children are assumed or verified orphans, placements in western, nuclear, families, usually Christian, are considered superior options for their care (Doyle, Reference Doyle2010). This assumption persists despite concerns expressed by academics and international agencies about child removal compounding the effects of loss and harm caused by separation from families/carers, communities and culture, diminished chances of reunification and the severing of legal ties (Kelley, Reference Kelley2010). The growing body of knowledge concerning psychosocial care post disaster bears directly on the removal of children for adoption from disaster zones. Notably, this literature has not been explored in relation to adoption. Before turning to this literature, the intertwined histories of ICA and disaster are outlined.

A brief history of ICA post-disaster

The origin of ICA as an international practice is tied to disaster. Key moments in the history of ICA are a series of geo-political and environmental disasters which provided occasions for children to be permanently removed by foreign nationals, as discussed below.

Removal of children during or post-disaster: best practice for children?

Child trafficking and adoption-driven child rescue are problematic from ethical and legal perspectives, yet more concerning is that actions taken to ‘protect’ children are driven by personal and/or popular beliefs with little reference to knowledge generated by research. Exploring how contemporary understandings of psychosocial care in disaster management inform the evacuation of children is important when critically reviewing interventions. Where prospective parent groups, adoption agencies and proponent politicians have influence adoptions are expedited. It appears that many seek to use the window of opportunity created by disaster to expedite as many adoptions as possible. A study that examined the long-term psychological impact of evacuation during World War II on children separated from their parents found that adults evacuated as children had more insecure attachment styles and lower levels of present psychological well-being than non-evacuees (Foster et al., Reference Foster, Davies and Steele2003). Boyden (Reference Boyden1994) discusses research that indicates the experience of conflict has less devastating and less long lasting effects on children than separation from family, social disruption and cultural bereavement. Bland (Reference Bland1997), in a study of adult Italian factory workers evacuated after an earthquake, found distress was greater for evacuees removed far from their social network. This research points to disaster distress as a consequence of social network disruption related to the disaster rather than the disaster itself. A study conducted of a Sri Lankan community following the 2004 tsunami found strong compassion, concern and self-help existed within the community. Distress reported by participants was not focused on the tsunami per se, but rather with their treatment by many of those ‘helping’ them and the damage created by an aid invasion (Lesnick and Urek, Reference Lesnick and Urek2010). These studies challenge ready assumptions that evacuation is the most effective action to protect people in disasters. Their findings lead to an exploration of the psychosocial care literature and how research informs post-disaster actions.

Psychosocial aspects of disaster

Until recently, much of the research in this field has been conducted from a western, biomedical perspective where psychiatry and psychological interventions focus on the deficits and vulnerabilities of individuals. Contemporary understandings of good practice post-disaster has moved from Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD) that seeks to prevent Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in individuals whose assumptions about a safe world have been shattered to a more holistic, contextualised model of psychosocial care that ‘views emotional reactions to disaster as normal reactions to an abnormal event’ rather than psychopathology (Becker, Reference Becker2009: 654). Related to this is the emergence of Psychological First Aid (PFA) that assumes strengths and resilience within communities. Western biomedical perspectives may be irrelevant or inappropriate in cultural contexts where beliefs about life events and how to address them may differ (Hobfoll et al., Reference Hobfoll, Watson, Bell, Bryant, Brymer and Friedman2007; Tribe, Reference Tribe2007). Inclusion of cultural differences and knowledge of local communities, particularly in relation to power and resources, are essential in disaster response, although indigenous ways of healing and managing disaster are seldom considered (Crosby and Grodin, Reference Crosby and Grodin2007; Thirumurthy et al., Reference Thirumurthy, Uma and Muturam2008). Pack-Patton (Reference Pack-Patton2010) found that cultural sensitivity is more important than formal training in disaster intervention. Recently, traditional relief responses have shifted to deploying local resources to build local capacity and resilience (Alam, Reference Alam2010).

The inevitable association of disaster with widespread panic and violence is increasingly challenged by research (Raphael, Reference Raphael2005; Mark, Reference Mark2008). Evidence from different contexts suggests that survivors rally to help each other and develop adaptive responses that must be recognised, mobilised and strengthened (Raphael, Reference Raphael2005). Caring for children benefits both children and adult survivors and promotes community healing as part of the recovery process (Becker, Reference Becker2009). In a study of disaster-prone Bangladesh, resilience and coping are identified in ordinary people whose actions rebuild their communities (Alam, Reference Alam2010). Immediately post-disaster people search for their family members, followed by supporting other members of the community with active participation in recovery across age groups. Instinctive survival strategies that include individual initiatives, kinship ties and obligations and social networking are reported as important to recovery (Alam, Reference Alam2010).

There have been few systematic studies of children post-disaster, especially in developing countries (Williams et al., Reference Williams, Alexander, Bolsover and Bakke2008). Even less research relates to current adoption practices post-disaster. Children, like adults, usually experience varying degrees of distress in disaster situations, but most remain functional and are generally resilient (Belfer, Reference Belfer2006; Williams et al., Reference Williams, Alexander, Bolsover and Bakke2008). A review of the empirical literature identified that younger children experienced some short-term behavioural problems, but appeared to be little affected by the disaster itself (Norris et al., Reference Norris, Friedman, Watson, Byrne, Diaz and Kaniasty2002). Research on the negative long-term effects on children relate to the death or separation from family, caregivers, friends, teachers and others important to them, including displacement from their communities and peers (Williams et al., Reference Williams, Alexander, Bolsover and Bakke2008). Infants separated from primary caregivers as a result of disaster showed regression and attachment issues (Murray, Reference Murray2006; Williams et al., Reference Williams, Alexander, Bolsover and Bakke2008). Disrupted social networks and exclusion from them are risk factors for psychological distress, hence the importance of reunification strategies (Meyer, Reference Meyer1982; Bonnerjea, Reference Bonnerjea1994; Brandenburg, 2007; Morris et al., Reference Morris, Van Ommeren, Belfer, Saxena and Saraceno2007; Doyle, Reference Doyle2010). Children are comforted by re-establishing support systems, including those with peers (Morris et al., Reference Morris, Van Ommeren, Belfer, Saxena and Saraceno2007; Williams et al., Reference Williams, Alexander, Bolsover and Bakke2008).

The risks for children due to the breakdown of traditional structures and violence are high in countries where long-term conflict or disasters are overlayed onto poverty. Ager et al. (Reference Ager, Boothby and Bremer2009) identify tensions in Darfur concerning separated children as the indigenous definition of a separated child differs from that of the international community. Despite conflict and risks to children, protective factors were identified, including complex family and community systems, obligations and social responsibilities and informal care systems that protect separated children. Ager et al. (Reference Ager, Boothby and Bremer2009) highlight the importance of focusing on conditions that promote protection with longer-term benefits for reconstruction and development including re-establishing traditional social mechanisms and strengthening community capacity.

Continuity

The ‘continuity principle’ (Omar and Alon, Reference Omar and Alanon1994) is important to all stages of disaster management and aims at community preservation and restoration. The continuity principle informs interventions for children based on re-establishing pre-existing individual, family, organisational and communal routines that mediate disruption caused by disasters, and the importance of child participation in relief efforts (Morris et al., Reference Morris, Van Ommeren, Belfer, Saxena and Saraceno2007). In the case of ICA post-disaster, heroic and sentimental responses from those outside affected communities directed to ‘rescuing’ children through adoption immediately post-disaster are at odds with research pointing to the benefits of children healing within their communities. The continuity principle emphasises recognising, mobilising and strengthening local communities in their own recovery.

The Sphere Project (2004) is an initiative launched in 1997 by humanitarian NGOs, the Red Cross and Red Crescent to develop a Humanitarian Charter, minimum standards and an operational framework in disaster assistance. The Sphere initiative began as a response to the Rwandan genocide and is based on the premise that historically humanitarian actions have been insufficient in dealing with the complexities of disasters and their social and cultural implications. Special measures and indicators are identified for children considered part of the larger affected population (Williams, Reference Williams2006; Williams et al., Reference Williams, Alexander, Bolsover and Bakke2008). These include the maintenance of cultural and religious events including grieving rituals; access for children and adolescents to educational and recreational activities as resources permit; participation by adults and adolescents in relief activities; participation of isolated persons (including orphans) in activities that facilitate inclusion in social networks; the establishment of tracing services for family reunion; mechanisms for taking children's views into consideration in the development of interventions aimed at them; and access to Psychological First Aid for all distressed individuals. Morris et al. (Reference Morris, Van Ommeren, Belfer, Saxena and Saraceno2007) reviewed the relevant literature pertaining to the Sphere standards on social and mental health issues relating to children, and recommendations for post-disaster interventions. They noted a need for more research related to children, a challenge being addressed by the Child and Family Disaster Research Training and Education (DRT) program (Pfefferbaum et al., Reference Pfefferbaum, Houston, Reyes, Steinberg, Pynoos and Fairbank2010).

In response to the Haitian disaster, the Interagency Standing Committee (IASC) Mental Health and Psychosocial Support (MHPSS) Reference Group identified keeping families together as a priority and the Mental Health and Psychosocial Support Guidelines in Emergencies Settings (IASC, 2007, 2010) aim at family preservation. The core principles are grounded in human rights, equity, community participation, capacity building and development, and the ethical principle of doing no harm. The IASC identifies a hierarchy of needs beginning with needs for basic services and security, advocacy for careful management of aid bodies, and the provision of credible and accurate information. This is followed by community and family supports for appropriate cultural and religious activities including mourning, participation and consultation, re-establishment of normal routines and activities, maximizing opportunities for people to connect, caring for staff and provision of information about positive coping. Finally, there are focused, non-specialist supports that include Psychological First Aid and specialised mental health services where required. Psychological First Aid is now routinely used in post-disaster situations and requires training, focus on culturally relevant support and practical assistance particularly in relation to reconnecting people (including children) and supporting their strengths, and self-care for workers. It involves a process of contact and engagement, safety and comfort, information gathering, information provision, practical assistance, connecting with social supports and linking with collaborating services (IASC, 2007; Ruzek et al., Reference Ruzek, Brymer, Jacobs, Layne, Vernberg and Watson2007; Vernberg et al., Reference Vernberg, Steinberg, Jacobs, Brymer, Watson and Osofsky2008).

Implications for adoption

Children constitute one of the most vulnerable groups in disasters making their protection important. Legal and ethical concerns with the practice of post-disaster child removal for adoption emerge in our review of key events in post-disaster adoption history. While the adjustment of children in adoptive families has been widely researched, the efficacy of ICA in the immediate aftermath of disaster has not been previously examined in light of the psychosocial care literature. Exploring historical adoption practices identifies potential harms to children. These relate to haste, the loosening of safeguards and protective processes in the adoption process and the adoption-centred goals of evacuations. Hasty evacuations force separations from related or unrelated significant others. This is at odds with the findings from the psychosocial care literature which indicate immediate safety, normalisation, stabilisation, re-establishment of routines and social connectedness in the immediate post-disaster period. As a practice, ICA, which represents the legal severance from the birth family, expatriation, the imposition of a new name and new identity on the adoptee, relocation to a new country with different language, food and culture, and a new family, is far removed from the ‘continuity principle’. If continuity is considered to benefit the child within his or her community in post-disaster recovery, a large question remains as to who benefits from the radical discontinuities entailed in child removal for adoption?

It is commonly held by advocates for the adoption of children from severely disadvantaged circumstances and disasters that these children have no attachments and no culture as they live in orphanages or on the streets, a view put strongly in an Australian inquiry into intercountry adoption in 2005 (HRSCFHS, 2005). In contrast, the analysis in this article assumes that most children have extended family relationships, relationships with caregivers within orphanages and with peers who represent significant attachments. While not, perhaps, attachments of the kind found in western nuclear families, children in even the most disadvantaged situations are likely to have attachments which stand to be disrupted through their removal. Orphanages do not exist in isolation from the communities in which they exist. There are practices, routines, language and people familiar to the children within them, factors which, though under-researched, are important to acknowledge when considering post-disaster actions. Children's reactions to disaster depend on the degree of destruction and loss they experience (Murray, Reference Murray2006; Williams et al. Reference Williams, Alexander, Bolsover and Bakke2008). So, a crucial question to be asked is whether child adoption in the immediate post-disaster period ameliorates the child's experience of trauma or loss, or adds to cumulative loss. Arguably, the disruption entailed in evacuation for adoption, and the rupturing of that child's routines and networks may be considered traumatic in itself. To progress ICA immediately post-disaster before the child, significant others (whether family, institutional carers or peers), and community have had the opportunity to normalise their situation, re-establish routines and rebuild capacity is a psychosocial factor to be considered in addition to the other considerations of child rights, reunification strategies and the prevention of trafficking. The inclusion of psychosocial care knowledge in decisions about children adds to existing evidence that questions adoption-driven evacuations post-disaster.