research note 2008 adoption in the eu

7/29/2019 Research Note 2008 Adoption in the EU

1/22

1

Centre for Social and Economic Research (CASE)

Sienkiewicza 12, 00-010 Warsaw, [email protected]

Research Note

Adoptions in the European Union

by Anna Ruzik

Abstract:

The following research note describes the statistics and recent trends in the adoptions in theEuropean Union. In the last decades, an increasing trend in the number of the inter-countryadoptions made some researchers suggest that adoptions of children from outside the EUcould to some extent counteract the process of ageing of European population.

Data show that since 1970s there has been a considerable increase in the number ofadopted children, and several European countries (mainly Spain, France, Italy, and severalScandinavian countries) became the major global adopting countries. The observed trendwas an outcome of an increasing demand for the adopted children with scarce numbers ofnational children available for adoptions. Additionally, inter-country adoptions were treatedsometimes as rescuing children from a childhood in institutions in the poor home country.

However, in recent years data show stabilisation or even a decrease in the inter-countryadoptions. Additionally, many previous countries of origin (e.g. Romania or China) introducedthe policies towards a lower outflow of the children abroad. Therefore, it seems that the inter-country adoptions probably would not counteract to a large extent ageing of Europeanpopulation in the longer run.

This Research Note has been produced for the European Commission by the Demographynetwork of the European Observatory on the Social Situation and Demography. The views

expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the EuropeanCommission.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/22

2

Adoptions in the European Union

I. IntroductionThe aim of the following research note is to present and to discuss the volume of nationaland international adoptions in the European Union. Adoptions here are understood as one ofthe alternative means of caring for a child when own parents are unavailable, unable orunwilling to care for this child.1 Among adoptions the full adoption is the option that mostresembles natural family, still, it should be treated as a subsidiary to the childs maintenancein or the return to the biological family.

From the point of view of potential adoptive parents an adoption is a way to have a child ifthey are either involuntary childless or do not want to have a child through biological process.

In the last decades, the increasing trend in number of inter-country adoptions in manydeveloped countries posed an interesting question: whether adoptions of children fromoutside the European Union could be treated as the remedy for the ageing of Europeanpopulation? Inter-country adoptions are even sometimes proposed to be considered the partof international migration processes (see: Weil 1984, Marre 2005)2. So, having in mind arecent increase in this type of adoptions in Europe, in the following research note we tried toanswer the question if inter-country adoptions really are or could be in future a significantphenomenon from a demographic point of view.

All the Member States have regulations for national and international adoptions. Guidingprinciples concern aspiring adoptive parents and children for the declaration of the status ofadoptability. Legal prerequisites for an adoptive parent usually define the maximum andminimum age limits or the maximum difference in age between parents and children, amarital status of parents/parent, availability of adoption for homosexual couples, etc..Additionally, prospective adopters are required to undergo assessment to prove that theymake suitable parents. Some countries introduced the special provisions in adoptingdisabled children or children who are possible candidates of international adoption.

In international legislation two important documents regulating the adoption area are:

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child,

The Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect ofIntercountry Adoption.

The Hague Convention was concluded and signed first by 63 states in May 1993. It wasthe effect of reports and international concern on child trafficking and unofficial payments forthe newborn babies.

1Other possibilities are: care by foster parents or guardians (the custody remains by the natural

parents, but the foster parents have the right to decide on the childs everyday life matters) and care indifferent care institutions.

2Additionally, while immigration laws are becoming more restrictive, in international adoption

legislation the tendency is usually opposite and public administration is sometimes more cooperative.

Marre (2005) describes international adoptions mainly in Spain and says that Public administrationsare cautious and conservative when it comes to immigration issues. However, they are collaborativeand even propose strategies in order to make the adoption process more flexible (p. 3-4).


3/22

3

Immigration of adoptive third country national children are also regulated within the EUimmigration acquis provided that the parents are established third country national within theEU (Article 4 of Directive 2003/86).

Specific national regulations are beyond the scope of this analysis, but further informationcan be found e.g. in the report by ENNOC (2006). However, it should be underlined that thedifferences in legislation cause possible problems when comparing statistics on adoptionsoriginating from different countries and different sources. For example, sometimes intra-family adoptions are included in the information on inter-country adoptions, in other statesonly non-family adoptions are counted.

Therefore, this research note should be treated as the approximation of the general situationand description of trends and directions of adoptions rather than presentation of exactnumbers. It could be the basis for future more detailed research carried out in the MemberStates, mainly with the focus on the issue of inter-country adoptions.

Structure of this research note is the following. First, we describe in a concise way differenttypologies of adoptions used in national and comparative statistics. Then, we providenumbers of adoptions in different countries and compare them to other information ondemographic development of the source countries and receiving countries. Special focus ison the number of international adoptions. The last section concludes. Detailed data ispresented in the Appendix.

II. Types of adoptions

Adoptions can be classified according to different characteristics.

First, there exist two legal categories: simple adoptions and full adoptions. Simple adoptiondoes not break off the filial tie between a child and the biological parents, sometimes such anadoption can be even revocable. Foster parents look after the child but they do not have allrights of the legitimate parent. Full adoption means that the filial tie between a child andhis/her biological parents is broken and all the rights and duties of the adoptive parents are inforce.

Then, adoptions can be relatedorunrelated, in the first case a child is placed in relatives'homes, i.e. adopted by the member of own biological broader family, like grandparent(s), anaunt or an uncle.

It is also possible that the spouse of one birth parent adopts her or his biological child insuch a way becoming a stepparent. An increase in the divorce rates in the late 20th centurycaused an increase in second marriages and adoptions in form of stepparents (usually step-fathers).

Finally, the important division can be made between the national adoptions (of a native-bornchild) and the inter-country/ international adoptions (of a foreign nation child). Internationaladoptions originated in the USA, they were motivated by philanthropy towards devastatedcountries after the Second World War. Later, the Korean and Vietnam Wars resulted in manyadoptions from these countries to the United States and Western Europe. Today the declinein infants available for a domestic adoption made an inter-country adoption an attractiveoption (sometimes the only possible) for childless couples. On the other hand, for children

who cannot be placed in a permanent family setting in their countries and culturalenvironment, it might be also the favourable solution.


4/22

4

III. Adoptions in numbers

As it was mentioned before, children whose own parents are unavailable, unable or unwilling

to care for them can be placed either in the institutional (residential) care, in different types offoster families, or adopted. In this part of this research note we present available data for theEuropean countries (not only the EU Members) and additionally some information on thenon-European source countries.

Worldwide, the number and the share of institutionalized children varies from country tocountry. In 2003, the project conducted under the auspices of the European CommissionsDaphne Programme surveyed 33 European countries and found that over 23 thousandchildren younger than 3 years were in institutional care for more than three months (Browneet al, 2004). That gives a ratio of 11 per 10 000 population. Variation in the share of such thechildren varied from less than one per 10 000 young children in institutions to as high as 60children per 10 000. The highest ratios was observed in Belgium and several Central and

Eastern European countries (the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania,Slovak Republic, Hungary).

UNICEF (2007) report shows the comparable numbers in relation to population younger than18 years in the countries of the same region (Figure 1). Generally, the trends are notfavourable as increasing or at most stable share of institutionalised children can be observedin the last decade. Only Romania and Bulgaria succeeded in decreasing the share ofchildren in residential care, but the initial mid-1990s level was in those countries extremelyhigh.

Figure 1. Rate of children in residential care (per 100,000 population aged 0-17)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Czech Republic

Hungary

Poland

Slovakia

Slovenia

Estonia

Latvia

Lithuania

Bulgaria

Romania

Source: UNICEF (2007)

Some of institutionalised children find another family, adoptive or foster parents. Thefrequency of adoptive parenthood again varies between the countries (see Tables 3a-6a inthe Appendix), as well as the share of national and inter-country adoptions in a total numberof all the adopted minors. To a large extent the differences depend on availability of domesticadoptions and on the legislation.


5/22

5

For instance, in the United Kingdom it is easy to adopt a native-born child and inter-countryadoption procedure is expensive. That is one of the reasons why the number of nationaladoptions in England, Wales and Scotland is much higher than adoptions from abroad.

On the other hand, in the countries like France, Italy, the Netherlands or Nordic countriesonly few children could be adopted nationally and an inter-country adoption is easier than inthe UK. For example, in 2006 adoptions in Italy equalled 3158, the majority of these were theinter-country adoptions. People in Sweden adopt approximately 1000 children annually, 10-20 of these are national adoptions, the rest are international adoptions. Out of 791 childrenadopted in Norway in 2004 only 124 were national adoptions, including stepchild adoptions.In 2003, in the Netherlands for every national adoption there were nearly 40 inter-countryadoptions.

Whereas in the Western Europe prospective adoptive parents look for babies abroad, theNew EU Member States that before 1990 were in the Soviet-Bloc in recent decades wereusually countries of origin of children adopted abroad. Still, the total number of adoptions inthose countries depends on legislation and its changes in the recent years (see: Tables 3a,4a, 5a and Figure 2).

Figure 2. Gross adoption rate in selected CEE countries (per 100,000 population aged0-3)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Czech Republic

Hungary

Poland

Slovakia

Slovenia

Estonia

Latvia

Lithuania

Bulgaria

Romania

Source: UNICEF (2007)

More in-depth analysis of the stepparent adoptions shows that there is no one commontendency. n some countries many are the stepparent adoptions. In Germany since 1991more than a half of all the adoptions have been the adoptions by a spouse of the biological

parent. The related adoptions are about 4-7 per cent in the whole researched period. Morethen 40 per cent are unrelated adoptions. In Scotland in years 2001-2006 from 30 to 40 percent of the yearly adoptions were by the stepparents, but e.g. in Norway in the same period itwas from 13 to 26 per cent and the trends in the share of the stepparent adoptions are theopposite (decreasing in Scotland and increasing in Norway).

IV. Inter-country adoptions

In the last thirty years number of the inter-country adoptions increased considerably. Only

between 1998 and 2004 inter-country adoptions increased by 4 percent. Selman (2007)estimates that in 2004 over 45 thousand of children were adopted internationally to North


6/22

6

America and Western Europe. Reasons for looking abroad for a child to adopt are mainly: ascarcity of the native-born children available for the adoption. Marre (2005) points out that anobserved increase in the demand for the inter-country adoptions could also be the outcomeof the humanitarian rationale, in order to help the poor and abandoned children.

Lammerant and Hofstetter (2007) present more detailed data on the number of the inter-country adoptions in six European countries that account for the vast majority of such theadoptions in Europe: Spain, France, Italy (the main contributions to increases between 2000and 2005), Norway, Switzerland and Germany. Between 2000 and 2005 in Spain the numberof inter-country adoptions increased from 3062 to 5423 per year, giving the highest ratio ofadoptions to population. Also France has seen a strong increase in the number of inter-country adoptions from 2971 in 2000 to 4136 in 2005. The highest increase was observed inItaly, from 346 of the international adoptions in 2000 to 2840 in 2005. In the same period inNorway the number decreased slightly from 589 to 582 per year, which still gives one of thehighest inter-country adoption rate in Europe. Decreases between 2000 and 2005 occurredalso in Switzerland (from 478 to 337 annually) and Germany (from 878 to 547 per year).

On the basis of the available data and studies one could suppose that since 2004 the rate ofadoption has steadied in the most important receiving states and in some decreased.Lammerant and Hofstetter, (2007) explain that change as a result of a decrease in thenumber of children in need of a family in the previous source countries. The reduction in thenumber of babies available for an inter-country adoption is due to a decrease in the causesof abandonment, implementation of social policies in favour of families, less stigmatization ofunmarried mothers, the economic development and an increase in the national adoptions inthe main source countries.

The structure of the receiving and source countries has been changing, less with the respectto the receiving states, more as far as the sending countries ranking is concerned (Tables 1and 2).

Table 1 Receiving countries with the highest number of international adoptions 1988-2004.

Country 1988 1998 2001 2003 2004

US 9 120 15 774 19 237 21 616 22 884

France 2 441 3 777 3 094 3 995 4 079

Italy 2 078 2 233 1 797 2 772 3 398

Canada 2321

2 222 1 874 2 181 1 955

Spain 932

1 487 3 428 3 951 5 541

Sweden 1 074 928 1 044 1 046 1 109

Germany 8753

922 798 674 506

Netherlands 577 825 1 122 1 154 1 307

Switzerland 492 686 457 366 557

Norway 566 643 713 714 706

Denmark 523 624 631 522 528

Belgium4

662 310 255 281 470

Australia 516 245 289 278 370

Finland 78 181 218 238 289

Total 14 countries 19 327 30 801 34 870 39 696 43 699


7/22

7

Estimate for 20 mainreceiving countries

n.a. 31 720 35 903 40 791 44 875

1. Figures for Quebec only. 2. Incomplete data. 3. Estimate based on 4 northern lands. 4. Frenchagencies + one EurAdopt Dutch agency.

Source: Selman (2000, 2002, 2005).

Main states of origin of the adoptive parents are North America and Western Europeancountries. In absolute terms the main country where children from abroad are adopted is theUS, accounting for around half of all the inter-country adoptions. The other non-Europeancountries that are visible in the statistics are Canada and Australia. The major Europeancountries adopting internationally are Scandinavian countries (especially Sweden), France,the Netherlands, and more recently Spain and Italy.

Adopted children originate mainly from the poor South hemisphere countries, the formerSoviet Union and Eastern Europe, and from the Asian countries, often those affected bywars. To a large extent the source countries are the same as the regular emigration source

countries.

In 1980-1989, ten major countries were (in a decreasing order with the respect to adoptedchildren): Korea, India, Colombia, Brazil, Sri Lanka, Chile, Philippines, Guatemala, Peru, andEl Salvador. After over a decade in 2003 the main country of origin was China, followed byRussia, Guatemala, Korea, Ukraine, Colombia, India, Haiti, Bulgaria and Vietnam.

Table 2. Selected EU adopting countries and countries of origin in 2000, 2002, 2004.

2000 2002 2004

Germany n.a. n.a. Russia, Ukraine,Colombia, Haiti, Nepal

Spain Romania, Russia,China, Colombia,

Ukraine

China, Russia,Ukraine, Colombia,

Bulgaria

China, Russia,Ukraine, Colombia,

Ethiopia

France Romania, Colombia,Guatemala, Cambodia,

Ethiopia

Colombia, Haiti,Madagascar, Russia,

Guatemala

Haiti, China, Russia,Ethiopia, Colombia

Italy Russia, Bulgaria,Colombia, Romania,

India

Ukraine, Bulgaria,Colombia, Belarus,

Poland

Russia, Ukraine,Colombia, Belarus,

Brazil

Source: Lammerant and Hofstetter (2007), p.24.

Tables 7a-10a in the Appendix present more detailed information on the inter-countryadoptions in the selected EU countries in years 2001-2004.

To show the full picture of the inter-country adoptions in Europe the number of adoptionsshould be presented in a relation to the size of the population or to the number of births inboth a source country and a country of origin.

Selman (2005) compared different demographic variables and showed that in EuropeNorway, Sweden and Spain have the highest level of the inter-country adoptions (per 1000live births) in the world. From the point of view of the sending countries Belarus, Bulgaria,

Romania and Ukraine have at various times sent more children per 1000 live births than anyother state of origin (Figures 3 and 4).


8/22

8

Figure 3. Inter-country adoption ratio (adoptions per 1000 live births) and crudeadoption rate (adoptions per 100,000 population) 1998 and 2004

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

Norw

aySp

ain

Swed

en

Denm

ark

Switz

erla

nd

Netherla

nds

Italy

Irelan

d

Fran

ce

German

yUK

adoption ratio 1998 crude adoption rate 1998 adoption ratio 2004 crude adoption rate 2004

Source: Selman (2005)

Figure 3. Inter-country adoption ratio (adoptions per 1000 live births) and crudeadoption rate (adoptions per 100,000 population) in main source countries in 2003

0 5 10 15 20 25

Bulgaria

Belarus

Guatemala

Russia

Ukraine

Haiti

South Korea

Kazakhstan

Romania

Colombia

Poland

China

Vietnam

Madagascar

Thailand

Ethiopia

Philippines

India

crude adoption rate adoption ratio


9/22

9

Source: Selman (2005)

So, despite the inter-country adoptions in the past were often characterized as the movementof children from the poor, over-populated countries. However, some states of origin since thelate 1990s, have a very low fertility rate: e.g. Russia, Ukraine, China, South Korea, Romania,Belarus. Fertility rates in those countries were lower than in some countries adoptingchildren.

The break-up of the Soviet Bloc played a role in an increase in the adoptions from thecountries in the region. An interesting example here is Romania, where the inter-countryadoptions sharply increased at the beginning of 1990s. These adoptions followed thepublicity about thousands of the children living in the inadequately staffed and fundedorphanages due to poverty that led to many families abandoning their children. However, theRomanian international adoption policy started to be the focus of the international criticism.The drop in adoptions in 1992-1993 was the result of a temporary suspension of adoptionsby the Romanian government. The 19962000 administration has re-written the legislationconcerning child protection and adoptions in June 2001, the international adoptions were

suspended for some time to revise the adoption procedures.

Age and gender of children adopted internationally

Majority of the internationally adopted children are less than 5 years old, only data forSwitzerland show that children younger than five constitute less than 40 per cent of all theinter-country adoptions in recent years. The share varies between the main Europeanadopting countries and depends on the source countries policies and procedures as well ason the adoptive parents preferences.

Share of girls in inter-country adoptions in now larger than boys mainly because childrenfrom China now constitute more and more of the children adopted internationally and most ofthose Chinese children are girls. Chinese population control policies along with the greatervalue placed on male heirs have led many families to abandon female infants. Girlsdominate also in the adoptions from India and Vietnam. Countries like Russia, Ukraine,South Africa, or Morocco send more boys for adoptions to the Western European countries.In Italy, one of the main destination country, there are more boys among younger adoptedchildren and more girls at older ages.

V. Conclusions

The aim of the following research note was to present and discuss the number of nationaland international adoptions in the European Union. Additionally, on the basis on availabledata we try to assess whether adoptions of children born outside the European Union couldbe treated as a significant phenomenon from a demographic perspective.

In the area of the international adoptions data show that since 1970s there were aconsiderable increase in the number of adopted children, and several Western Europeancountries are the major global adopting countries. Spain, France, Italy, and someScandinavian countries contributed to this increase in the numbers of the adopted children.The observed trend was an outcome of the increasing demand for the adopted children andwas treated sometimes as rescuing children from a childhood in institutions or a negativeinfluence, e.g. in Romania (Dickens 2002).


10/22

10

However, in recent years data show stabilisation or even a decrease in the inter-countryadoptions in some EU countries. Additionally, several countries of origin like Romania in2001 or China in 2005 introduced the tighter adoption regulations and the internationalinstitutions underline that an inter-country adoption should be always only subsidiary to theown childs family or the national adoptions. Some source countries are the states with a verylow fertility rate, so implementation of the policies towards a lower outflow of the childrenabroad could be there more acceptable.

To conclude, it seems that the inter-country adoptions should be treated as the way toprovide children with the possibly most favourable environment to grow up and develop,rather than the remedy for the ageing European society.


11/22

11

References

Browne, K.D., Hamilton-Giacritsis, C.E., Johnson, R., Agathonos, H., Anaut, M., Herczog, M.,

Keller-Hamela, M., Klimackova, A., Leth, I., Ostergren, M., Stan, V., Zeytinoglu, S. (2004).Mapping the number and characteristics of children under three in institutions across Europeat risk of harm. (European Union Daphne Programme, Final Project Report No. 2002/017/C).

Dickens J (2002) The paradox of inter-country adoption: analysing Romanias experience asa sending country, International Journal of Social Welfare, No 11, pp76-83.

Duncan, W. (1993), The Hague convention on the protection of children and co-operation inrespect of intercountry adoption,Adoption & fostering, vol. 17, no. 3, p. 9-13.

ENNOC (2006), Report on National and Intercountry Adoption, ChildONEurope, EuropeanNetwork of National Observatories on Childhood, Jan., 2006.

Lammerant I.,M. Hofstetter (2007), Adoption: at what cost? For an ethical responsibility ofreceiving countries in intercountry adoption, TDHIF, Lausanne, Switzerland.

Marre D. (2005), Intercultural relations, racialisation and experience of international adoptionin Europe: the Catalan Case, paper presented at WELLCHI Network Workshop 4 Children inmulticultural societies, Athens, 2-3 Dec., 2005.

Selman P. (2005), Trends in Intercountry Adoption: Analysis of data from 20 ReceivingCountries, 1998-2004, Journal of Population Research, vol. 23, No. 2/2006, p. 183-204.

Selman P. (2007) Trends in Intercountry Adoption 1998-2004: A demographic analysis ofdata from 20 receiving States Journal of Population Research special issue onGlobalisation and Demographic Change.

UNICEF (2007), TRANSMONEE 2007 Features, UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre,Florence.

Weil R.H. (1984), International Adoptions: The Quiet Migration, International MigrationReview, 18, p. 276-293.


12/22

12

AppendixTable 1a. Children in residential care (in thousands) a)

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Czech Rep. 21.3 21.8 21.9 22 22.6 22.9 22.6 22.7 22.8 23.3 23.5

Hungary 9.2 8.9 8.3 9.6 8.8 8.6 8.8 8.3 8.5 8.3 8.1Poland 77 76.5 76.4 77.6 76.9 79.2 61.4 59.5 57.4 56.8 55.8

Slovakia 9.3 9.3 9.3 8.8 8.8 9.2 9.2 8.5 8.9 9.5 9

Slovenia b) 1.4 1.4 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.9 1.6

Estonia 1.5 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.8 1.9 1.5 1.5 1.6

Latvia 2.9 3.3 3.3 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.1 n.a.

Lithuania c) 11 11.4 12.1 12.2 12.1 11.5 11 10.7 10.8 10.3 n.a.

Bulgaria d) 26.6 27.2 24.4 23.5 23.7 13.7 13.3 12.1 11 10.5 10.4

Romania e) 49.5 52 51.8 44.7 38.8 58.4 51 44.1 38.2 33.1 29.1a. Refers to children in infant homes, orphanages, boarding homes and schools for children without parentalcare or poor children, disabled children in boarding schools and homes, family-type homes, SOS villages, etc.Children in punitive institutions are normally excluded. Definitions may differ among countries. b. Data since1999 include those undergoing behavioural rehabilitation in institutions and youth homes. c. Data include those18 years and older residing in childcare homes; also includes children living in boarding schools. d. Data for theperiod 2000-2005 are based on the new national legal definition. e. Data for the period until 2000 are notcomparable with data for 2000-2005, due to changes in the system. Include individuals 18 years and older.

Source: UNICEF (2007).

Table 2a. Rate of children in residential care (per 100,000 population aged 0-17)

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Czech Rep. 893 945 985 1 016 1 068 1 109 1 117 1 143 1 168 1 216 1 241

Hungary 394 392 374 441 416 413 428 413 428 424 418

Poland 724 735 751 785 800 848 682 687 687 702 709

Slovakia 626 645 659 640 656 708 720 692 748 821 792

Slovenia 315 318 274 288 401 420 414 465 467 528 450

Estonia 418 486 507 526 545 560 610 652 549 567 590

Latvia 473 555 584 666 685 702 719 732 724 688 n.a.

Lithuania 1 177 1 238 1 342 1 372 1 394 1 347 1 324 1 339 1 388 1 377 n.a.

Bulgaria 1 442 1 521 1 410 1 402 1 451 861 886 831 775 763 769

Romania 865 936 959 853 760 1166 1036 928 827 740 672


Table 3a. Adoptions (absolute number, incl. inter-country adoptions)

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Czech Rep. 628 575 634 499 566 512 545 464 588 552 540Hungary a) 940 1 030 911 850 928 681 631 598 566 545 597

Poland 2 495 2 529 2 441 2 425 2 344 2 474 2 496 2 454 2 371 2 622 n.a.

Slovakia 514 522 451 476 579 404 400 438 508 506 539

Slovenia 74 79 57 66 59 51 58 46 48 21 11

Estonia 82 108 65 87 76 87 101 79 67 102 65

Latvia a) 387 384 404 373 378 102 156 160 86 173 181

Lithuania 220 229 254 191 135 77 99 147 165 196 196

Bulgaria 2 100 2 081 2 130 2 058 2 289 2 140 2 229 2 152 1 858 1 094 959

Romania 2 595 2 320 1 007 2 857 4 285 4 326 2 795 1 753 1 662 1 673 1 138

a. Data until 1999 include step-adoptions.



13/22

13

Table 4a. Gross adoption rate (per 100,000 population aged 0-3)

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Czech Rep. 137.1 134.8 160 133.6 156.1 142.3 152 129.2 161.4 148.5 141.4

Hungary 201.2 228 209.3 203.3 231.8 175.9 165.2 156.7 148.1 142.9 156.7

Poland 128 136.6 137.8 143.4 144.1 156.6 162.6 164.4 162.8 183.5

Slovakia 182.9 196.6 179.3 198.1 248 176.8 180.6 204.9 243.5 245.3 259.5

Slovenia 93.2 101.3 74.4 88.1 80.3 70.3 80.6 64.2 67.3 29.5 15.4

Estonia 134.8 192.6 180.2 171.9 154.6 178.5 205.9 158.5 131.7 196.9 122.3

Latvia 361 400.6 466.9 467.1 497 135.4 204.9 206.1 108.2 215 221.6

Lithuania 117.2 132 156.9 123.3 89.9 52.9 70.6 109.7 129 159 162

Bulgaria 639.1 668.1 725 744.4 850.3 791.8 835.9 814 698.6 410.8 356.6

Romania 264.3 243.4 107.9 309.9 467.4 471.3 306.3 198 193.7 197.9 135


Table 5a. Inter-country adoptions (absolute number, source countries)

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005Czech Rep. 54 58 20 43 46 50

Hungary 129 132 182 80 147 128 93 112 100 80 88

Poland 238 242 205 226 264 217 190 211 222 256

Slovakia 14

Slovenia 2 2 1 1 1

Estonia 29 37 30 37 27 20 33 15 28 16

Latvia 144 195 212 202 152 63 110 130 71 130 114

Lithuania 94 104 130 134 92 40 43 72 104 103 108

Bulgaria 454 550 669 826 1010 1005 854 984 635 270 118

Romania a) 1057 1658 948 2017 2575 3035 1521 407 279 251 2

a. In 2004 a new law on adoptions entered into force.Source: UNICEF (2007).


14/22

14

Table 6a.Adoptions in Europe, selected EU countries (absolute numbers, incl. inter-country adoptions)

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 20

Denmark 1 101 1 247 1 149 1 044 1 228 1 296 1 276 1 138 1 433 1 434 1 3

England and Wales 6 533 7 170 7 341 6 854 6 240 5 797 5 962 5 307 4 386 4 316 4 9

Finland

Germany 7 142 8 403 8 687 8 449 7 969 7 420 7 173 7 119 6 399 63

Ireland

Italy (only international 2001-2003)

Malta 11 106 84 37 21 30 71 60 57 72

Netherlands

Norway 855 833 851 786 788 898 822 814 1094 802 7

Portugal

Scotland 821 815 823 805 664 640 580 470 490 489 3

Spain (only international adoptions) 942 1 487 2 006 3 0

Switzerland

Sources: http://www.statbank.dk/ADOP1; http://www.statistics.gov.uk;; http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/02/02/10/adhttp://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files1/stats/annual-report2006/j873204.htm#8; http://www.adoptionsportalen.se/; hhttp://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.publications&dtid=32&cid=69; www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/en/ind


15/22

15


16/22

16

Table 7a. Countries of children origin for Inter-country adoptions in selected EU states, 2001

Adoptive parents country

State of child origin Italy Netherlands Finland Sweden

Afghanistan 4

Albania 9

Australia 1

Bangladesh 1

Belarus 147 52

Benin 1

Bhutan 1

Bolivia 4 1

Bosnia & Herzegovina 1

Brazil 133 29 4

Bulgaria 149 2 23

Chile 32 4

China 445 64 220

Colombia 162 190 43 138

Congo 1 3

Cote d'Ivore 2

Czech Rep. 2

Ecuador 14 7 5

Eritrea 1 3

Estonia 9 7

Ethiopia 79 42 4 17

Gambia 3

Georgia 1 1

Germany 3

Ghana 3Greece 1

Guatemala 8 46

Guinea 1

Haiti 70

Hungary 2 1

India 145 53 6 75

Indonesia 2

Iraq 1 8

Israel 1

Japan 1

Jamaica

Kazakhstan 1

Kenya 3

Korea South 61 117

Kyrgyzstan 1

Latvia 6

Liberia 1

Lithuania 2 2

Madagascar 3 2

Mexico 3

Moldova 3

Morocco 2

Mozambique 2

Nepal 34 6


17/22

17

Nicaragua 1

Nigeria 3

Pakistan 2

Peru 35 4 4

Philippines 18 6

Poland 62 15 1 34Portugal 3

Romania 175 1 1 12

Russia 92 49 54

Senegal 3

Serbia & Montenegro 3

Sierra Leone 4

Somalia 14

Sri Lanka 6 5 2

South Africa 20 5 51

Spain 1

Sudan 1

Surinam 5

Taiwan 57 4

Tanzania 6

Thailand 2 15 36 33

Togo 1

Tunisia 2

Turkey 5

Ukraine 451 14

USA 12 2

Vietnam 36 78

Zambia 1

Source: http://www.hcch.net/



state of child origin Italy Netherlands Finland Sweden

Afghanistan 1

Albania 8

Algeria 2

Angola 2

Austria 1

Bangladesh 1

Belarus 185 44

Benin 1

Bolivia 19 2

Brazil 131 20 4

Bulgaria 218 1 21

Burkina Faso 2

Burundi 3

Cambodia 14 1

Canada 1

Cape Verde 1

Chile 40 2

China 510 64 316

Colombia 205 197 37 122

Congo 1


18/22

18

Costa Rica 2

Cote d'Ivore 2 1

Croatia 1 1

Czech Rep. 1

Egypt 1

Ecuador 16 3 10Eritrea 2

Estonia 6 15

Ethiopia 112 51 11 18

France 2

Georgia 1

Germany 3

Greece 1

Guatemala 20 3

Haiti 7 83

Hungary 6

India 102 34 1 60

Indonesia 1

Iran 3

Iraq 8

Israel 1

Japan 1

Kazakhstan 1

Kenya 4

Korea South 27 109

Latvia 3

Liberia 2

Lithuania 5 4

Macedonia FYR 1

Madagascar 4

Malawi 1

Malaysia 1

Mexico 7 3

Morocco 1 1

Nepal 51 2

New Zealand 1

Nigeria 3 1

Pakistan 1 2

Peru 19 1 1

Philippines 2 13 7 10

Poland 154 22 5 26

Portugal 5

Romania 40 2

Russia 112 53 71

Senegal 2

Serbia Montenegro 6

Sierra Leone 4

Slovak Rep. 1

Somalia 4


Spain 2Sri Lanka 7 6 1


19/22

19

Sudan 1

Surinam 10

Taiwan 63 5

Tanzania 3

Thailand 2 14 45 29

Tunisia 2Uganda 2 4

Ukraine 635 2 19

UK 4

USA 18 2

Vietnam 90 1 86

Zambia 1




state of child origin Italy Netherlands Finland Sweden

Albania 5

Azerbaijan 1

Bangladesh 1

Belarus 254 51

Benin

Bolivia 80 8

Bosnia Herzegovina 3

Brazil 228 25

Bulgaria 265 1 17

Burkina Faso 3

Cambodia 29 5

Cape Verde 1

Chad 1

Chile 44

China 567 62 373

Colombia 273 171 37 90

Congo 2 1

Costa Rica 2

Cote d'Ivore 1

Croatia 1 1

Czech Rep.

Ecuador 6 4

Equatorial Guinea 1Eritrea 2 21

Estonia 2 6

Ethiopia 47 39 6

Georgia

Guatemala 8 4

Guinea Bissau 1 2

Haiti 6 69

Honduras 1 1

Hungary 16

India 121 21 6 37

Iran 4Iraq 6

Israel 2 1


20/22

20

Kenya 5 2

Korea South 17 111

Laos 1

Latvia 2

Liberia 1 2

Lithuania 28 2Macedonia 1

Madagascar 6

Mexico 6 1

Moldova 6

Montenegro 2

Morocco 1 1

Mozambique 1

Nepal 64 2

New Zealand 1

Nigeria 2 9 1

Pakistan 1 1

Peru 30 4 1

Philippines 5 8 12 7

Poland 148 20 1 25

Romania 70 1

Russia 380 26 66

Salvador 1

Senegal 1

Serbia Montenegro 14

Sierra Leone 6

Slovak Rep. 29

Somalia 14


Sri Lanka 7 8

Surinam 8

Syria 2

Taiwan 81 2

Tajikistan 1

Tanzania 2

Thailand 3 13 64 35

Turkey 1

Uganda 3

USA 31 5

Ukraine 523 1 21

Vietnam 59 32




state of child origin Germany France Sweden

Afghanistan 4

Albania 2 4

Argentina 1

Armenia 16

Austria 1Bangladesh 1

Belarus 11 2 34


21/22

21

Benin 5

Bhutan 2

Bolivia 32 13

Bosnia/Herzegovina 4 2

Brazil 16 92 3

Bulgaria 25 48 7Burkina Faso 85

Burundi 4

Cambodia 6

Cameron 44

Capo Verde 1

Chad 3

Chile 3 15

China 491 497

Colombia 47 314 71

Congo 16 1

Cote d'Ivore 25

Croatia 1 3

Czech Rep. 1 5 8

Djibouti 31

Dominique 6

Ecuador 1 1

Eritrea 3

Estonia 1

Ethiopia 1 390 26

Georgia 2

Germany 2

Greece 1

Ghana 2 1

Guatemala 1 72

Guinea Bissau 13

Haiti 35 507

Honduras 1

Hungary 1 7 1

India 4 13 46

Indonesia 1

Iran 3

Iraq 10

Israel

Jamaica 1

Japan 1 2

Jordan 1

Kazakhstan 11 8 2

Kenya 1 5

Kyrgyzstan 2 1

Korea South 42 121

Laos 2

Latvia 105 1

Lebanon 3

Liberia 1

Lithuania 4 28 8Macedonia 1


22/22

Madagascar 292

Malaysia 1 1

Mali 79

Mexico 1 16

Moldova 1 2 1

Morocco 1Mozambique 1 1

Nepal 27 32 1

Nicaragua 3 1

Nigeria 2

Pakistan 3 3

Panama 1

Peru 2 2 1

Philippines 16 5

Poland 9 36 21

Portugal 1

Romania 10 16

Russia 149 445 53

Rwanda 7

Senegal 6

Serbia Montenegro 5 13

Slovak Rep. 4 4

Somalia 13


Sri Lanka 7 9 2

Sudan 1

Swaziland 1

Syria 1

Taiwan 2 3

Tanzania 1

Thailand 26 87 27

Togo 2 18

Turkey 2 2 2

Tunisia 28

UK 2

USA 1 1 3

Ukraine 56 126 13

Uzbekistan 1

Vietnam 14 363 6

Yemen 1

Zambia 1

other 28


research note 2008 adoption in the eu

Documents