From institutional care to life in an Australian family: The experiences of intercountry adoptees

Abstract

Intercountry adoption programmes have brought children from racially and culturally diverse backgrounds to live as Australians, including 30 Thai children from Rangsit Children’s Home who arrived in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This article provides insight into the experiences of intercountry adoptees at four key stages of the adoption process: leaving the orphanage, arrival in Australia, becoming a member of a family and reconnecting with Thai culture. As this study demonstrates, each of these phases can be challenging for both the adoptees and the families who adopt them and supports may be required long after adoptees become adults.

Keywords

Australia culture intercountry adoption post-adoption racism support services Thailand

Introduction

Since the mid 1970s, organised programmes of intercountry adoptions have brought children from other countries to become members of Australian families with the expectation that life in a new country will offer children many possibilities not available to them in their country of birth (Murphy et al., 2010). Humanitarian concerns led to the establishment and formalisation of intercountry adoption programmes as frequently these children had been orphaned or abandoned by their parents and no long-term placement outside of institutional care could be arranged in their country of birth (Young, 2012).

Until the 1970s, adoption authorities in Australia sought as far as possible to do physical matching of a child with their adoptive parents, such that children would be placed with parents of the same race or ethnicity (Cuthbert and Spark, 2009a). However, in intercountry adoptions, the placement of children with parents with different racial characteristics is the norm. The adoptee’s unique physical characteristics inform others that they are of a minority group and this may pose challenges personally, culturally and politically as they navigate their lives in a Euro-Western society (Selman, 2012).

The voices of adoptive parents have dominated research findings into the experience of intercountry adoption which has resulted in ‘dominant narratives … that contribute to an overrepresentation of adoptees as only or perpetually children, rather than as people with individual agency who will mature and assume the capacity of voicing their own needs and interests’ (Walton, 2012: 447). However, in recent years, there has been an emerging recognition of the need to hear the experiences of intercountry adoptees in their own voices. One example of where the experiences of adoptees and adoptive parents often differ is that adoptees are far more likely to have struggled with being racially different than have adoptive parents (Willing et al., 2012).

One of the outcomes of transracial adoption for Asian adoptees, in Western countries such as Australia, is the experience of racism and dislocation. Adoptees often become aware of difference when they begin school (Walton, 2009). Denigration and threats of violence because someone has an Asian appearance are not uncommon experiences and can lead to rejection of an Asian identity (Willing et al., 2012). At the same time, intercountry adoptees also encounter the expectation that they will be culturally Asian and conform to a particular stereotype despite having grown up in a very different culture. However, seeking to connect with others from their country of birth can also result in rejection due to an inability to speak the language or have a deep understanding of the culture (Williams Willing, 2005). Consequently, a question adoptees are often asked is ‘Where are you (really) from?’ (Walton, 2009: 208).

A key factor in assisting intercountry adoptees to develop a positive sense of who they are is the adoptive family’s attitude and commitment to embrace the birth culture of the child. Whereas adoption practices once emphasised assimilation into the culture of the adoptive parents (Sloth, 2006), maintaining links with a child’s birth culture and returning to visit the country of birth are now strongly encouraged (Nelson, 2006; Williams Willing, 2004). As a result, many intercountry adoptees are returning to their birth country to find their birth parents and experience their country of birth to such an extent that it has been claimed that

[t]he social pendulum has swung from the virtual denial of adoption and the biological beginnings of the adopted child to an insistent ideology that without embrace of those beginnings there will forever be a gaping hole, a primal wound, an incomplete self. (Volkman, 2003: 43)

This article explores the experience of intercountry adoption for a cohort of adults born in Thailand who arrived in South Australia as intercountry adoptees in the late 1980s and early 1990s. These findings emerge from a larger study exploring the lived experiences of this group from leaving a children’s home in Thailand to living in Australia first as children and now as adults (see also Scarvelis et al., 2014).

Method

Participants

During the late 1980s and earl y 1990s, 30 children from the Rangsit Children’s Home in Thailand were adopted by South Australian families. At the time of their arrival in Australia, they were aged between 4 and 10 years.

Many of the children were abandoned at birth in Thai hospitals and lived in children’s homes until their adoption. There were approximately 200 children living in the Rangsit Children’s Home, during the late 1980s and early 1990s, with 30–40 children sharing a dormitory. These children had almost no contact with the world outside the orphanage and never ventured beyond the orphanage gates. Even the rudimentary schooling received by the older children occurred within the confines of the institution. Many of those who came to Australia from Rangsit Children’s Home would have been considered to be ‘special needs’ adoptions on the basis of having a medical condition, a physical or intellectual disability, or emotional and behavioural difficulties, associated with their life experiences prior to adoption (Scarvelis et al., 2014). Many of them had obvious physical abnormalities requiring medical attention, and special dispensation was granted by the Australian Immigration Department to allow entry into Australia.

Participants were recruited through the World Families Australia organisation (previously known as the Australian Society for Intercountry Aid Children SA Incorporated or ASIAC SA), which since the early 1970s has been the key organisation supporting intercountry adoptions in South Australia, providing support and social activities for adoptees and their adoptive families. World Families Australia distributed information about the research project through online announcements and via an informational flyer that was distributed to a monthly support group of adoptive parents which is run by World Families Australia. The flyer invited the Thai adoptees from Rangsit Children’s Home to contact the first author (B.S.) of this article by telephone or email if they were interested in participating in the research. On making contact, further information was provided about the project, including aims of the project, length of interviews and consent processes. Prior to interview, more detailed information was provided in the form of a Plain Language Statement which accompanied the Informed Consent forms for participants.

A total of 12 adults who had come to South Australia as intercountry adoptees from Rangsit Children’s Home in the late 1980s and early 1990s contacted B.S., and all were subsequently interviewed in the latter months of 2011. Although their actual age at interview was not ascertained, at the time of their arrival in Australia, six participants were in the 4–6 year age bracket and six were aged 7–9 years. Therefore, participants were aged between their early 20s and early 30s at the time of interview. Nine were male and three were female. The age at arrival and gender distribution of research participants are not dissimilar to those of all 30 children who arrived in South Australia from Rangsit Children’s Home.

Interview procedure

Life history interviews were conducted as these provide research participants with the opportunity to recapture the subtle differences, the people, meanings, events and even ideas of the past that have influenced and shaped their present lived experience (Hatch and Wisniewski, 1995). Open-ended questions explored the participants’ lives in Australia in three chronological periods. The first stage of the interview was focused on when the adoptee first arrived in Australia when interactions were confined to adapting to a new way of life, living within a family, learning a new language, attending primary school and the introduction of social events. The second stage was directed to the adolescent period when secondary school was attended, peer interaction became important and activities took place outside of the home. What assisted them during this stage and what had negatively impacted them were also covered. The final stage addressed adulthood, which included the participants’ current situation living with or away from their families, encompassed by their experiences and challenges along the way.

The initial question was designed to be non-challenging and the participants were invited to talk about their lives when they first arrived in South Australia. The focus was placed on the adoptive family dynamics such as family members, number of children, other intercountry adoptive siblings and personal questions relating to age at adoption. This process enabled the participants to feel at ease as they drew on easily recalled facts relating to their family environments and adoption history, thus setting the participants’ memory in the early chronological period (Williams Willing, 2004).

Face-to-face interviews were conducted at locations in Australia negotiated with B.S. who was conducting the interviews. The time frame of each interview was approximately 1-hour duration, although this was not an intended set period. Each participant was interviewed once. The participants were encouraged to discuss their lives for as long as they thought was necessary to complete their answers. All interviews were audio-taped with the consent of participants. Ethical approval for this research was obtained from the Health Ethics Committee at Deakin University.

Data analysis

Transcripts of the interviews were sent to participants who were able to make changes to the transcription prior to analysis. Thematic analysis was undertaken to identify key themes and issues for this cohort of Thai adoptees at each of four key stages in the adoption process (Rubin and Rubin, 1995). This involved the researchers ‘systematically exami[ning] and re-examin[ing]’ the data to uncover recurring themes or what was collectively being said (Minichiello et al., 2008: 280). Emerging themes at each stage of the adoption process were compiled into a list and data related to each theme identified and coded. This was initially undertaken by B.S. and then modified after discussions with the second and third authors. The findings reported reflect our shared understanding of the data.

Due to the small population of adoptees who came from the Rangsit Children’s Home to South Australia, some of whom are known to each other, a decision was made not to attribute quotes or ideas to specific individuals, in order to preserve anonymity of individual participants.

Findings

The interview data provide insight into the experiences of intercountry adoptees at four key stages of the adoption process. These were leaving the orphanage, arrival in Australia, becoming a member of a family and connecting with Thai culture. Each stage will be discussed in turn.

Leaving the orphanage

While some of the children had an understanding as to what was happening, for others, this was a time of confusion. As all the adoptees had spent most or all of their lives institutionalised, it was a huge step for them to leave the orphanage, come to South Australia and live in a family environment. While living in Thailand, none had ventured beyond the orphanage gates. They were attuned to the Thai culture: the food, the language, the people, the smells, the sounds. They were also accustomed to orphanage culture of predictability, routines and collective solidarity formed by the children with whom they shared their lives. There were approximately 200 children living in the Rangsit Children’s Home during that particular period, and 30–40 children shared a dormitory. Participants recalled the orphanage as providing limited food at meal times, for example, ‘we used to be hungry all of the time because we didn’t get a lot of food’. Similarly, schooling was limited and very basic which elicited comments such as ‘ABC but in the Thai language with lots of activities like colouring and we wouldn’t stay in school for very long’. Other recollections of life in the orphanage concerned how the children’s behaviour was controlled with physical punishment, fear and intimidation. As one participant explained,

There was a lot of physical abuse because if we were naughty we would get hit, get spanked. That’s how they controlled us, through fear and intimidation. If we didn’t go to sleep at night they used to scare us to sleep using a ghost. We didn’t quite understand what a ghost was but we understood that there was somebody outside, somebody scary. We didn’t know what that thing looked like; we just knew it was out there. It used to go around knocking on windows and scaring the hell out of us, and if we were talking and that, boom, boom, heaps of noise outside and then everyone was silent. That is how they made us go to sleep.

The poor care and the physical and emotional abuse that had been experienced in the orphanage were frequently discussed, and typical comments were ‘I didn’t like it’, ‘it was just horrid’, ‘sort of torture’, ‘they don’t treat you well’ and ‘all dodgy’; nightmares were still being experienced by a few.

Despite these difficulties, the orphanage was nevertheless the adoptees’ home and a place they were accustomed to. Hence, leaving the orphanage with strangers, whom the adoptees could not understand, heightened levels of much anxiety and confusion for some of the adoptees. As one recalled, ‘they started talking this strange language … I was screaming and crying in the hotel and you know, I didn’t understand what they were saying … then they took me away’. Even some of the older children had no real understanding as to what was happening to them:

I was nervous and excited, but I think I was more terrified because it was something out of my comfort zone. Being stuck in orphanage for over seven years, I would say I was nervous and scared. I had always been used to waking up to the same environment every day and then I was taken out of that environment, I was so scared.

Others were pleased and excited to leave and stated that ‘I was actually happy to leave the orphanage’ and ‘it felt good, it felt really good’ and had some understanding that they were coming to Australia to a new life, with a new family. An intense sense of freedom was experienced on leaving the orphanage by a few of the older adoptees.

Arrival in Australia

The experience of arriving in Australia varied considerably. For several of the older children, this was a time of feeling scared and confused, and difficulties in adapting to their new life were experienced. A number of participants commented on what they perceived to be similarities between orphanage life and prison life when referring to the lack of life skills and experiences which resulted from, what they remembered as, living in a confined and controlled environment for many years:

I am aware of the outside world but I don’t have a big picture of what the outside world is like. So I am stuck in a very controlled environment. It’s like being in jail. When you have been there for two or three years it might not affect you until you go out. It is the same with an orphanage but you’re a kid, and you know that’s when you’re moulded.

Some stated that they felt weird, whereas others had feelings of being alone and this was frequently expressed, for example, ‘it was quite different being alone’, ‘I really felt by myself’, and ‘when I first come to Australia I was very alone, I didn’t have any one to relate to’. Several thought of the orphanage as their home and ‘being brought up and hanging around with the Thais in the orphanage I pretty much thought they were my family’ was a common belief among the adoptees. Hence, many experienced grief and loss after they left. They missed the company of the other children with whom they had shared their lives, and the feeling of being alone was often stated. They were used to living in the orphanage environment, and they grieved for what they knew and understood of their lives in Thailand. They were confronted with a new world with new experiences, a new language and different food, as well as a change in climate, new sights and new sounds. A few described the move as a cultural shock. For example,

[t]hings were very different, the weather was cold at the time and I had never experienced cold before and I didn’t know what to do really. I didn’t know the toaster and all that stuff. It was weird, it was just weird, and at the same time I didn’t know what was going on. It was big cultural shock if that’s the word.

A new family

Living in a family was a big change for children who had spent their lives in an orphanage. Some of the older adoptees had a sense of feeling comfortable with their new families having had a few days together in Thailand, and looking back to first meeting their new family, one participant remembered thinking ‘these people are fine and I think I will be settling in well’. Souvenirs of life in Thailand were important, such as listening to Thai music brought comments like ‘I had a favourite music tape that my Mum bought for me and I listened to it’.

For both adoptees and their new families, there were many challenges in making the adjustment to family life in a new culture. As one said, ‘It was hard to get along because you are getting used to each other and a different culture and family’. Others were more specific with comments such as ‘I lived my life with a room full of kids and then they take you to Australia and you have your own bedroom and that’s a bit scary; it was a bit hard for the first few nights’. There was a noticeable change for the adoptees at mealtime, eating with a family after eating with a lot of children in the orphanage, and ‘I remember feeling a bit weird and scared to do anything’ was commented on by a few. Nevertheless, some adoptees realised that coping mechanisms which they had developed in the orphanage to overcome adversity could also assist them to adapt to family life. Comments such as ‘the adjustment was pretty hard, it took a while to get used to the new environment, but you learn to cope’ and ‘you always struggle with something’ were made by several participants.

Having other intercountry adoptees in the family assisted many of the Thai adoptees to integrate into their already culturally diverse families. ‘I felt comfortable actually; they probably knew what I was going through’, and ‘I guess they were trying to make me feel welcome’, typified the overall views. It was strange at first for some who did not understand the concept of siblings, and they explained,

In a way it’s just like friends from another family or another country and at the time I thought that they are my friends, but as the years go by I think they are my brothers and I feel more connected.

Having adoptive parents and extended families who were culturally diverse Australians ‘made a lot of difference’ and assisted with integration according to a few. Indeed, many of the families had previous experience with multiple intercountry adoptions of older children so they had some idea of what to expect when adopting an older Thai child. ‘I had really great support from my family’ and ‘my parents always made sure I had fun and I was never bored because there were always things to do’ were various comments made. For others, it was their new parent’s first intercountry adoption and in some cases their first child.

Adoption also resulted in challenges for the new families, some of whom seemed more able to understand and respond to their needs. There were different experiences for those who were the only adoptee compared to families where there were multiple adoptees, and a few stated that ‘when I first come to Australia I was very alone, didn’t really have anybody to relate to’. The transition into Australian family life was generally easier for the families who had previously adopted from overseas countries as they were experienced and informed about many aspects of intercountry adoption of older children. Participants in this situation noted that ‘the family had experience with kids’, and ‘they already knew what was going to happen from the previous adoptions, so the transition was quite easy for me’. Although having several adopted siblings was regarded as an advantage by some, a few of the participants found that the age of arrival to Australia made a difference and that integration into families was easier at a younger age.

Love, support, guidance, encouragement, understanding from parents and siblings and having ‘people around me that understand’ were identified as being the most important things that assisted the majority of the adoptees during their lives especially during the adolescent years, and one added,

The most important thing when you’re growing up, I believe, is that family support is a big deal in how you’re going to feel. Just to have that support it makes it easy for you to go through what you’re going through.

Individual comments varied when referring to the love and support received from families. One participant summed it up by stating ‘you can’t put a value on that’. Others compared earlier days of living without a family to living in a family and added ‘family is a big thing, a massive thing’. Receiving guidance and support through difficult times was recognised by several adoptees, and typical comments were ‘they guided me through, out of trouble’ and ‘actually what helped me most was the support from my mum and dad; that’s very important to me. Otherwise I would be no-where, I’d be a crazy little kid’. Respectful behaviour was encouraged by some parents, and ‘to grow up to be a good person’ was reiterated. Some found they could depend on their parents’ advice and stated ‘they always give me advice’. Others had parents who encouraged them to carefully think through important decisions rather than telling them what to do.

Love, acceptance and support shown by extended families were also important and appreciated by many. As one participant stated,

It’s not just immediate family; it’s extended family as well that’s really important. I just feel that from day one I felt really accepted. They made me feel loved, and they didn’t look at me as a different person or make me feel alienated; they made me feel like I was a member of their family.

A few encountered difficulties, and the adolescent years brought challenges for the adoptees and their families. For some, it was a period of family conflict and rebellious behaviour. Many experiences were typical of teenage behaviour when clashes occurred between parents and adoptees, despite them talking about identity issues. In some cases, family relationships were strained to a point where adoptees rebelled against their parents’ guidance and advice, which resulted in the adoptees leaving home and being presented with unexpected and further challenging experiences for the individuals, as one reiterates ‘I currently blame myself because I did rebel, I wasn’t kicked out it was more like I pushed them away’.

When assessing their own lives, many saw themselves as lucky to be adopted and recognised the many opportunities in life that they had been given. Lucky, in a sense, that they were the ones who were adopted to Australia as opposed to the children who remained in the orphanage. Some thought of their lives as being very fortunate and were pleased to be accepted into a family because ‘it’s not easy to find a good family’. Another summed up the situation of luck for all of the Rangsit adoptees by stating,

I’m guessing that all of us that came from Thailand from this orphanage, we are pretty lucky and we should pretty much just be grateful and thankful for our mums and dads for adopting us. Because there are more kids out there that want to be adopted and we’re the lucky ones and so far we’re doing well.

A number of the adoptees indicated that they would like to adopt a child from overseas to give someone the same opportunity they had been given so that personal life experiences could be repeated and enjoyed by someone else. As one such adoptee commented, ‘I know when get older I want to adopt kids because it gives them a better quality of life. I want to help kids to come here to Australia. I want to do the same’.

Nevertheless, it must be recognised that adoption is a difficult process and it did not always go to plan. Varying levels of integration into the family were experienced. A small number of adoptees talked about their ‘real siblings’ and parents when referring to the biological connection within the family, as if they were a different class. In a worst case scenario, integration into a new family does not occur, and for two participants, issues in the initial placement with an Australian family resulted in the children being placed with another family. Having been relinquished by their Thai parents, these adoptees experienced repeated rejection causing additional consequences for the individuals.

Connecting with Thai culture

None of the adoptees spoke English when they arrived, and the families had little or no Thai language. Most of the adoptees had difficulty communicating with their families, and the struggle continued for a couple of years. However, while none of the adoptive parents were Thai-speaking, a few families had taken steps to maintain some Thai language skills. Socialising at Thai festivals not only provided an opportunity to observe Thai traditions but also allowed the adoptees to converse in Thai. As one commented,

I remember during Thai festivals, during song time, families with adopted children from Thailand would always get together and interact. Actually some of them didn’t know Thai they only spoke English, but I knew, I still knew my Thai so spoke some Thai to my friends, the ones that actually understood Thai.

The majority of participants identified that socialising with other intercountry adoptees and their families while growing up was very beneficial as friendships were formed and maintained. Many attended picnics and camps on a yearly basis for all intercountry adoptees no matter what country they had come from. These were organised by the intercountry adoption parent support groups and provided ongoing contact for the adoptees, especially for those who lived in regional locations. It also allowed a few adoptees from the orphanage to have ongoing contact and maintain ‘real close friends from a long time ago’ with continued friendships into adulthood. Mixing with other adoptees provided a sense of security knowing that other people lived in similar families: ‘I got to hang out with some of the other kids, just like me, so that was pretty good’. Confidence levels were boosted when interacting with other adoptees: ‘It definitely helps and it made you feel more confident’. The following comment typified how many of the participants felt:

I think this was important because all the kids when I was young we all had fun; we mixed with each other. We probably don’t see each other now; now we are all adults. But I think it was a good idea to keep everyone in touch with all the families and the kids, which we did in the past.

Several participants had a longing to reconnect with their past and find any biological connections to a Thai family: ‘I always thought that I sort of know who I am, but I never knew who I was, I still don’t. It’s always been part of me that I don’t know’. Others stated it was important ‘because it’s my past, and sometimes you can’t really run away from your past so it’s very important to know the culture’. Consequently, a few had journeyed back to the orphanage to revisit the place they had left many years ago while others were planning to return. Some participants had scant memories of the orphanage and felt that revisiting it was something they had to do to reconnect with their past to see where they had lived. However, this was a highly confronting experience which should not be forced on those who do not desire or feel ready to return. One adoptee commented,

This year I visited my orphanage to find my roots and information, and to see what my orphanage looks like now and how it has changed, which it had changed a lot since I had been there. I found that they treat the kids over there a lot different than how they treated us back then. I was a bit nervous at first but this year I’m old enough and I wanted to do it. I wanted to see it, to see how things are going and I was fine. I was just like wow, this is where I stayed.

Those who had returned were welcomed and remembered by orphanage staff, some of whom showed affection, although the adoptees had no recollection of them. Others expressed that they felt nervous and emotional while at the orphanage. For some, it brought back good memories. For others, it reignited unpleasant memories, as one participant explained,

It was really wow, memories, emotional, very, very emotional going back to my orphanage. Definitely lots of bad parts, but good parts were definitely in there as well. But the good parts I guess were when my mum and dad came and picked me up. I’m glad I went back to see where my life was when I started at the orphanage. They were pretty happy that I came back to say hello.

For those who had not yet been, planning to visit Thailand and to return to the orphanage was on the agenda to gain knowledge about their earlier lives. Several of the participants made similar comments:

I actually want to go back to where I came from and see where I grew up. I think I would probably head back to where I was placed, the orphanage, and see where I grew up and maybe I could see my home town. I’ve always had a craving to go back to my homeland to see what it is actually like living there.

Discussion

This study is the first to investigate the experiences of older children from the Rangsit Children’s Home in Thailand who were adopted by families in South Australia. It is also somewhat unusual among studies of intercountry adoption in that both the institution from which they were adopted was the same for all participants and all were adopted by families living in one region (cf. Fick and McMahon, 2009; Gray, 2009; Williams Willing, 2004). Nevertheless, as transracial adoptions of older children comprise a growing proportion of the approximately 30,000 intercountry adoptions which occur each year (Selman, 2012), the findings from this study have much broader applicability.

As the experiences of a group of this cohort of Thai-born intercountry adoptees demonstrate, arriving in a foreign country and becoming a member of a new family is a challenging process for both children and the families who adopt them. However, support for both adoptees and families is crucial not just at around the time of the adoption but also as children mature to adulthood. Many of the participants have identified ongoing problems and some have pronounced needs. Access to support, specific to their individual circumstances, needs to be available, including access to appropriate counselling. This would assist with addressing underlying problems associated with experiences of abuse and deprivation in the orphanage. Moreover, it would address any ongoing concerns they are now confronted with or may be confronted with in the future, for example, racism or feelings of inferiority to their Australian-born peers.

The participants’ adoptions were instigated under the banner of humanitarian notions where families were found for children deemed in need of a better level of care than could be provided by an orphanage in Thailand. However, despite the difficult living situation in the orphanage, adoptees found the experience of leaving the only place they knew confusing which raises the question of how best to prepare children for joining a new family in another country. Nevertheless, the participants in this study believed intercountry adoption had been for them a better option than remaining in a Thai orphanage as adoption had afforded them many opportunities which would not be available to them had they remained in Thailand (Gehrmann, 2005).

There are a number of limitations which may have impacted the research findings. First, while reflecting on their life histories as adopted Thai adults, participants’ memories were possibly skewed by their present situations and agendas (Williams Willing, 2004). Second, it is unknown the extent to which the 12 individuals who participated in this research had differing experiences from the remaining 18 Thai adoptees from Rangsit Children’s Home who arrived in South Australia in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and whether those who did not participate in this research chose not to or did not know of its existence. Third, as B.S., who was conducting the interviews, was known to some of the participants, it is possible that this resulted in a degree of guardedness from some participants, particularly when discussing aspects of their adoption which they had found problematic.

Notwithstanding these limitations, the findings in this study indicate that adoptive parents need to be educated and have access to resources to aid coping mechanisms if and when challenging behaviour is displayed by the adoptee (Fahlberg, 1988). The adoptive parents of this cohort of Thai children were not given any formal education relating to the challenges of adopting a child from Thailand. Many of them may have gained knowledge regarding intercountry adoption through their previous intercountry adoption experiences, the support networks and by listening to other adoptive parents’ accounts of their intercountry adoption experiences. However, if the adoptive parents did not belong to a support network at that particular time, then their knowledge of the intercountry adoption experience may have limited their expected adoption outcomes in dealing with challenging behaviour.

While we recognise that intercountry adoption practices have changed considerably since this cohort was adopted in the late 1980s and early 1990s (Gehrmann, 2005; Young, 2012), the findings of this study provide support for a number of practices, some of which are now incorporated into adoption policy and practice in Australia. For example, attending cultural-related festivals and events should also be encouraged both in Australia and in the birth country to promote positive cultural identity and education, not only for the adoptee but for the adoptive family members as well (Fick and McMahon, 2009; Gray, 2009). Furthermore, considerable pleasure and support was gained by the adoptees in this study from having ongoing contact with other intercountry adoptees while growing up (Gray, 2009). Returning to the birth country should be encouraged for the children to experience and develop a connection with their culture (Gray, 2009). ‘Native Land Visits’ are organised by the Thai Government every 3 years involving a week’s celebration of official events, social events and visiting some of the orphanages. However, although these events bring together Thai adoptees from all over the world, they are costly to attend and beyond the financial means of several of the research participants, unless their costs can be subsidised.

Intercountry adoption is an often contentious issue and has at times been highly politicised both in Australia (Fronek and Tilse, 2010; Murphy et al., 2010; Quartly, 2012) and in other countries (Kim and Smith, 2009). Such debates have the potential to overshadow consideration of the needs of those who have already been adopted. Whatever the future of intercountry adoption programmes, the ongoing support needs of intercountry adoptees and the families must be acknowledged as being ongoing and not ceasing when adoptees become adults. While adoption agencies are now recognising this need, this represents a substantial change from the period when the participants in this research were adopted (Cuthbert and Spark, 2009b). Previously, adoption agencies have tended to see their key role as facilitating family formation (Willing et al., 2012) and more particularly providing guidance to facilitate the adjustment of children to their new families and countries (Kim and Smith, 2009). The transition to adulthood inevitably brings new challenges, but for intercountry adoptees, their adoption experiences often lead to this transition being more complex and having ongoing support needs. Hence, the research described in this article contributes to the growing evidence base as to why ongoing support services for adult intercountry adoptees are an essential rather than an optional service (Walton, 2012).

Footnotes

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Author biographies

At the time of writing, Beverly Scarvelis was a Master of Social Work by Research degree student at Deakin University and Senior Social Worker at Murray Bridge Soldiers’ Memorial Hospital in South Australia. She has recently retired from paid employment.

Beth R Crisp is a Professor in the School of Health and Social Development at Deakin University where she is discipline leader for social work.

Sophie Goldingay is a Senior Lecturer in Social Work in the School of Health and Social Development at Deakin University.

References

Cuthbert

Spark

(2009a) ‘Other People’s Children: Informing Debate on Adoption in Australia’, in Spark

Cuthbert

(eds) Other People’s Children: Adoption in Australia, pp. 1–20. North Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Australian Scholarly Publishing.

Cuthbert

Spark

(2009b) ‘“Society Moves to Make Its Own Solutions …”: Re-Thinking the Relationship Between Intercountry Adoption and Domestic Adoption in Australia’, in Spark

Cuthbert

(eds) Other People’s Children: Adoption in Australia, pp. 55–72. North Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Australian Scholarly Publishing.

Fahlberg

(1988) Fitting the Pieces Together. London: British Agencies for Adoption & Fostering.

Fick

M.N.

McMahon

C.A.

(2009) ‘Psychosocial Correlates of Parenting Stress in Australian Parents with a Daughter Adopted from China’, Australian Journal of Adoption 1(2): 1–30.

Fronek

Tilse

(2010) ‘Controversy and Its Implications for the Practice of Contemporary Social Work in Intercountry Adoptions: A Korean-Australian Case Study’, Australian Social Work 63(4): 445–59.

Gehrmann

(2005) ‘Promoting a Multiracial Australia: Population Policy & Intercountry Adoption’, Australian Quarterly 77(4): 13–8, 40.

Gray

(2009) ‘Australian Intercountry Adoptees’ Diverse Experiences Returning to the “Homeland”’, in Spark

Cuthbert

(eds) Other People’s Children: Adoption in Australia, pp. 222–40. North Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Australian Scholarly Publishing.

Hatch

J.A.

Wisniewski

(1995) ‘Life History and Narrative: Questions, Issues, and Exemplary Works’, in Hatch

J.A.

Wisniewski

(eds) Life History and Narrative. London: Falmer Press.

Kim

Smith

C.J.

(2009) ‘Analysis of Intercountry Adoption Policy and Regulations: The Case of Korea’, Children and Youth Services Review 31: 911–8.

10.

Minichiello

Aroni

Hays

(2008) In- Depth Interviewing: Principles, Techniques, Analysis, 3rd ed. Sydney, NSW, Australia: Pearson Education Australia.

11.

Murphy

Pinto

Cuthbert

(2010) ‘“These Infants Are Future Australians”: Making the Nation through Intercountry Adoption’, Journal of Australian Studies 34(2): 141–61.

12.

Nelson

K.P.

(2006) ‘Shopping for Children in the International Market Place’, in Trenka

J.J.

Oparah

J.C.

Shin

S.Y.

(eds) Outsiders Within: Writing on Transracial Adoption. pp. 89–104. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

13.

Quartly

(2012) ‘“[W]e Find Families for Children, Not Children for Families”: An Incident in the Long and Unhappy History of Relations Between Social Workers and Adoptive Parents’, Social Policy and Society 11(3): 415–27.

14.

Rubin

H.J.

Rubin

I.S.

(1995) Qualitative Interviewing: The Art of Hearing Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

15.

Scarvelis

Crisp

B.R.

Goldingay

(2014) ‘Do schools promote social inclusion? The experiences of intercountry adoptees in Australia’, Journal of Social Inclusion, 5(1): 61-77.

16.

Selman

(2012) ‘The Global Decline of Intercountry Adoption: What Lies Ahead?’, Social Policy and Society 11(3): 381–97.

17.

Sloth

K.H.-M.

(2006) ‘Researching Adoption: Whose Perspective and What Issues’, in Trenka

J.J.

Oparah

J.C.

Shin

S.Y.

(eds) Outsiders within: Writing on Transracial Adoption, pp. 253–8. Cambridge, MA: South End Press.

18.

Volkman

T.A.

(2003) ‘Embodying Chinese Culture: Transnational Adoption in North America’, Social Text 21(1): 29–55.

19.

Walton

(2009) ‘More than a Korean Adoptee: Making Sense of Identity and Adoption in South Korea and Adoptive Countries’, in Spark

Cuthbert

(eds) Other People’s Children: Adoption in Australia, pp. 207–21. North Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Australian Scholarly Publishing.

20.

Walton

(2012) ‘Supporting the Interests of Intercountry Adoptees Beyond Childhood: Access to Adoption Information and Identity’, Social Policy and Society 11(3): 443–54.

21.

Williams Willing

(2004) ‘The Adopted Vietnamese Community: From Fairy Tales to the Diaspora’, Michigan Quarterly Review 43(4): 648–64.

22.

Williams Willing

(2005) ‘From Orphaned China Dolls to Long-Distance Daughters: A Call for Solidarity Across Borders’, in Wilson

Sengupta

Evans

(eds) Defending Our Dreams: Global Feminist Voices for a New Generation, pp. 95–109. London: Zed Books.

23.

Willing

Fronek

Cuthbert

(2012) ‘Review of Sociological Literature on Intercountry Adoption’, Social Policy and Society 11(3): 465–79.

24.

Young

(2012) ‘Developments in Intercountry Adoption: From Humanitarian Aid to Market-Driven Policy and Beyond’, Adoption & Fostering 36(2): 70–8.