We Adopt More Than Any Other Nation
I recently attended the CUB (Concerned United Birthparents) Annual Retreat, and it’s one of my favorite adoption events of the year. In my talk I shared some important data from my book, The Adoption Paradox and it’s one of the crucial pieces of data we compiled in researching the book.
What we wanted to understand is if the US does more infant adoptions than other countries by comparison. The answer is unquestionably YES, we do. The United States by far outpaces any other country in terms of the number of adoptions we do overall, and most definitely we do more infant adoption than any other nation on earth, based upon our comparisons.
First, a big shout out is needed to my research team! These ladies were amazing and were great at sleuthing out data on child welfare and adoption throughout the US and abroad. Thank you Sadie and Zhen!
The raw data we collected in compiling the table above can be found HERE. But there are some caveats and explanations needed in order to fully process this information, and it’s important to understand these details.
- First, we are using comparison data based on the number of births, by country, per year, of the countries we analyzed and could find data for.
- THIS IS IMPORTANT: this is an inherently flawed analysis when it comes to comparing adoptions within foster care or step-parent/family adoptions. The reason for that is that the majority of these types of adoptions are NOT involving infants. But infant adoptions are what we’re trying to evaluate and view in relation to what other countries rates of infant adoption are. So it’s still important to see these numbers and openly acknowledge that this is an imperfect comparison for these reasons.
- We still do more adoption.
Let’s dig in, and the way I’m going to do that is to share with you a video filmed from the panel at CUB where I explain these numbers to you. Check it out here:

It’s interesting to note the differences, and the data I think, leaves us needing to ask more questions. WHY do we adopt more than other nations? As I point out both in the above talk, and in the book, they do have other processes. Ones that are not related to a privatized system of adoption or if they are private, do not allow the creation of an online marketplace.
A for-profit and private adoption industry creates inherent friction points within any relinquishment. If a woman or couple is lacking resources and finally at the end of many months have now contacted an adoption agency, that agency is a business. Even if they are a non-profit one, their revenue streams are based on fees collected by facilitating adoptions.
One of the things my researchers and I looked at, but did not make it into the book, is we reviewed some of the information from The Donaldson Institute from a comprehensive study they did on relinquishment. A summary of that research can be found here. It is the only study we found that looks at the personnel working at these adoption agencies, and makes no distinction if the organization is for, or non-profit.
What is says is that very little information about parenting options is shared with expectant parents prior to placement. We, Sadie and Zhen specifically, went to Indeed.com to look up the job listings of current adoption agencies. The jobs all clearly state several things. One, is that an adoption councilor will be working with both expectant and hopeful adoptive parents. Their job is to in fact, facilitate and create adoptions. The job is not titled, for example, “resources coordinator” or other such term. So what is created is that the worker at an agency is there for one purpose, which is to guide an expectant parent or couple towards placement simply because that is their job.
This is the point of friction, and with 18,000+ of these situations occurring annually and virtually no follow up with any governmental body to see if agencies/attorneys and their personnel are following the state guidelines, what happens is that expectant parents lose all power in the situation. No one is actively in their corner looking out for their rights, and only their rights in the process.
Even if you pull the for-profit motive out of the story, the inherent process is that an agency or attorney who is in the business of fulfilling the desires of hopeful parents wanting an infant and are willing to pay an agency to do so, then that creates a very transactional nature. And I think sadly there is ample evidence that everyone is at risk of being manipulated. Hopeful parents take a massive financial gamble. Expectant parents, who we know from research, are largely placing due to a lack of resources whose legal rights are not always protected like they should be. And the infant adoptee, who’s benefit is supposedly the motivation for all of it, gets lost in the process.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on any of the above.

