USA Today article about ‘adoption shortage’

[are prompted] to look homeward” (Koch, 2013). According to the article, there are a couple of reasons fewer U.S. children are available for adoption. The first, “as single parenthood becomes more acceptable, there are just not as many women placing their children for adoption” (Koch, 2013). Second, “there are fewer in foster care because more are reunited with birth parents or adopted by relatives and foster parents” (Koch, 2013).

Koch (2013) does a good job of touching on all avenues through which children are adopted. Not only does she address international adoption, but also domestic adoption, covering both children whose parents have chosen adoption as well as children whom are state wards. The article cites a few statistics regarding the number of waiting children as well as the number of adoptions in recent years from reputable sources, such as the Children’s Bureau and the National Council for Adoption. Credit is also due to Koch for using appropriate terminology within the article. Too many articles are still published with terms like “giving up” or “putting up” children for adoption. Koch and her sources are careful to use terms like “placing” children for adoption.

Although Koch (2013) addresses both international and domestic adoptions, the article minimizes the need for adoptive families in the United States. It may be true that fewer women are choosing adoption, although there are no statistics cited to back this statement up, there are still an overabundance of children, especially those whom are wards of the state, that need homes. The article cites the Children’s Bureau stating that, “the number of [children] waiting to be adopted fell from 130,637 in 2003 to 104,236 in 2011” (Koch, 2013). 104, 236 is still an extremely high number. Additionally, Koch (2013) should have made a clearer distinction in the shortage of infants versus children in general available for adoption. The article cites the National Council for Adoption for statistics on the decline of infant adoptions in the U.S., but then does not specify that the number of children waiting, according to the Children’s Bureau, represents children of all ages.

A final critique of the article is that it perpetuates the idea that adoption is to fulfill the desire of adults who wish to parent rather than to give children homes and families. The title, “USA faces critical adoption shortage: Russian ban adds to record-low numbers” (Koch, 2013) bolsters the idea that adoption is for adults longing to parent. Then, the article opens with the following statement, “Russia’s decision to close its doors to U.S. adoptions is making a critical shortage of children Americans can adopt even worse” (Koch, 2013). In reality, a “shortage” is something to celebrate. Although the restrictions that other countries have placed on other countries adopting their children does not necessarily mean that there are fewer children needing families, it often times is best for a child to remain in their home country to maintain a sense of their identity. Undoubtedly, the “shortage” of domestic children available is great news. The term “critical shortage” would be much more appropriately used to describe a scenario in which there are not enough families wanting to adopt. Unfortunately, that is the case for older children and children with disabilities who are waiting for families right here in the United States.