Mapping the digitalisation of child adoption in India: Challenges and future possibilities

Abstract

Among several other countries, India has launched numerous digital initiative programmes aimed at integrating and upgrading various socioeconomic, political and health and social care arenas. One such area is child adoption, where a move away from the analogue system and towards digitalisation began in 2015. The Indian Ministry of Women & Child Development introduced the Child Adoption Resource Information and Guidance System (CARINGS), a digital adoption formalisation platform, under the Central Adoption Resource Authority, a nodal body that monitors and regulates both in-country and intercountry adoptions. This government initiative centralised adoption data from all over India, including the number of children declared free for adoption and the number of prospective parents registered and seeking to adopt. Against this context, this study aims to map the development of adoption in India through digital systems and the influence of digitilisation on those involved in the pre- and post-adoption phases. Drawing on both Western and Indian literature, as well as observations from an ongoing qualitative study on adoption digitalisation in India, this study discusses the benefits and limitations of digital systems for the people connected to them. The findings provide a comprehensive view of the interaction of technology and society and how this operates in the sociocultural context of adoption in India. Future implications for researchers and adoption social workers and consultants are discussed.

Plain Language Summary

The process of adoption in India was largely paper based until 2015. With the launch of the Digital India movement in 2015, newer digital facilities were introduced in various socioeconomic, political, health and social care sectors. Adoption was one such area: the Indian Ministry of Women and Child Development introduced a digital adoption formalisation platform called the Child Adoption Resource Information and Guidance System (CARINGS). It was established under the Central Adoption Resource Authority, which is responsible for monitoring and regulating both in-country and intercountry adoptions. CARINGS is a centralised database of the children waiting for adoption and prospective parents registered and seeking to adopt. It aims to streamline the adoption process and make it more efficient and transparent. A qualitative study was conducted to explore the impact of digital adoption on those involved in the pre- and post-adoption phases. The study included the perspectives of adoption social workers, adoption consultants, prospective adopters and adoptive parents. The present paper maps the influence of digital adoption in the pre- and post-adoption phases and discusses the advantages and challenges that arise from the interaction of technology and society. The paper concludes by presenting the future implications of digital adoption for researchers, adoption social workers and consultants.

Keywords

Child welfare domestic adoption intercountry adoption Indian adoption policy social work practice digitalisation

Introduction

Adoption in India is embedded within various sociocultural domains, and the impact of technology on this field, through its transformation into a completely digital and data-driven process, is underexplored. In 2015, a new digital resource called the Child Adoption Resource Information and Guidance System (CARINGS) was launched, providing a new approach and creating one platform to record adoption-related data from across India. The data included the number of children declared free for adoption, the number of children matched with prospective adoptive parents and the number of parents registered and waiting to adopt. Despite its effectiveness, CARINGS has faced numerous challenges. This technological advancement poses several questions: Has it streamlined the process for adoptive parents? Has it improved the roles of all stakeholders? Who are the system’s policymakers? Who are its beneficiaries? How is the data clarified for prospective adoptive parents? What challenges are faced by the system and experienced by the stakeholders for whom the digital platform was designed? An ongoing exploratory study designed by the authors in 2021, which is currently unpublished, is among the first to examine these questions. That study is within the mapping framework (Figure 1) presented in this present study. Ihde’s (1990) post-phenomenological perspective was used to build this mapping framework and further our discussion on the connection between technology and society to understand the digitalisation of adoption in India.

Figure 1.

Mapping the digital system of adoption in India.

The mapping framework of the digitalisation system (Figure 1) derives its structure from the interaction between the different hierarchies of those who manage the system, policymakers and the people influenced by it. On the left-hand side of the figure, there are five groups that influence the decision-making process of this system: state-based adoption agencies, social workers, adoption activist groups, adoption consultants, and mental health and medical professionals. The right-hand side of the figure depicts who is using the system and how they are using it. For example, prospective adoptive parents are able to register, upload all necessary documents, track their application status with their home study report, view the photo and medical/personal details of the child matched with them (i.e., the referral process) and access other documents related to the formalisation of an adoption. At the centre is the type of data available to the people connected to the system. Hence, the mapping framework allows us to see three main elements in the Indian digital adoption system: who the system’s influencers are, who uses it and whose suggestions are taken to modify its shortcomings. To understand this mapping framework, this study utilises two aspects. Firstly, studies from Western countries, such as the USA, Western Europe, Australia and New Zealand, are drawn upon to compare how technology, particularly social media, is used by adopted individuals, adoptive parents and adoption professionals. Secondly, since adoption in India differs due to the closed adoption system and the stigma associated with it, Western studies must be adjusted to fit the context of this system. Observations from our ongoing study on digitalisation can be used to explain the role of technology in an Asian society with a closed adoption system, such as India, where Western literature is limited in its perspective and application.

To better understand the digitalisation pathways of adoption in India, this paper begins by discussing the sociocultural evolution of child adoption in this country. It then discusses the influence of digital systems in the pre- and post-adoption phases, focusing on the people associated with this technology. The final section summarises the challenges faced by the system and future interventions required, in light of our own qualitative study and the literature review.

The sociocultural adoption framework in india

The history of child adoption in India, the third largest country in Asia with a population of 1.41 billion (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2022), dates back to the 18th century and is deeply embedded in the sociocultural context of class, caste and religious identity. Prior to independence from Britain in 1947, the British legislated India’s first Children’s Act in 1920, mandating that the Indian states of Madras and Bombay were responsible for destitute and neglected children (Bhargava, 2005). Given its colonial history, much of Indian legislation around childcare and child protection was regulated by policies and laws that favoured denominational, biological and religious connections over the quality of the care and protection offered to all children. For example, the Guardians and Wards Act (GAMA) of 1890 ensured guardianship rights to Muslim, Christian, Parsi and Jewish communities. For Hindu, Buddhist and Jain communities, couples could adopt under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (HAMA) of 1956 (Bhargava, 2005). These two laws were embedded in three dominant sociocultural beliefs and norms that governed the formal and informal ‘relinquishment’ of children and the adoption process.

First, there was a preference for kinship adoption (or intra-family adoption) as bloodline mattered in India’s divisive caste system (Gangopadhyay and Mathur, 2021). To a considerable extent, these adoptions were not legalised but were akin to the open adoptions practised in the West today (Apparao, 1997). The birth families were known, and the children grew up knowing both their adoptive and birth families. Such kinship adoptions prevailed given the apprehension towards institutionalised children with unknown backgrounds, who were seen as lacking ‘pure’ blood and a family name (Bharadwaj, 2003; Mahtani, 1994; Narang, 1982). Childless couples preferred to adopt within their caste, and most of these arrangements were made between family members and relatives to keep the bloodline known and respected. The concept of giving away a child to a known family member was considered a charitable act (Bhattacharya, 1990; Lilani, 1995). Second, a male child was preferred for adoption if kinship adoption was not an option for childless couples. This was in line with the belief in the Hindu tradition that only a male heir can carry the family name and perform the last rites for parents to achieve moksha¹ (80% of the Indian population is Hindu; UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2022). Third, importance was placed on women’s chastity and lack of sexual relationships before marriage. While cultural norms emphasised fertility, society maintained highly conservative attitudes toward ‘unwed’ mothers. Considerable shame and stigma were attached to the conception of a child outside marriage (Bharadwaj, 2003), often leading to illegal abortions and the abandonment of babies in secrecy. Although the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act has existed since 1971 in India, providing women with safe and legal abortions regardless of their marital status, services and awareness of access to safe abortions have been limited. Therefore, when considering the Indian adoption context against these beliefs, adoptions have been largely parent-centric, and the practice of placing children in extended kin and non-kin adoptive families has a long history in Hindu tradition. Most Indian myths, folklore and oral stories cover the importance of these three beliefs, dominating the past Indian adoption scene (Bajpai, 2021).

The beginning of closed adoptions

The preference for kinship adoptions resulted in the stagnation of non-family domestic adoptions² in comparison to international adoptions, which rose during the 1970s and 80s. During this period, India became a major sending country (Kane, 1993); however, many of these international adoptions took place outside of the legal framework (Apparao, 1997) and were not reliably documented (Hoksbergen and Gokhale, 1986). Financial affordability by foreign adoptive parents, the absence of a uniform adoption law in India and caste prejudices made intercountry adoption an attractive option for Indian adoption agencies (Mahtani, 1994). Thus, many children experienced foreign adoptions, and India witnessed a large public outcry over international adoptions as a platform for ‘baby selling’ (Apparao, 1997). To regulate intercountry and domestic adoptions, the Supreme Court of India issued a landmark judgement in 1984 in the case of Lakshmi Kanth Pandey vs. Union of India (The Supreme Court of India, 1984). The judgement privileged the adoption of Indian orphans by Indian parents, and the child would only be given to foreign parents if it was not possible to find suitable adoptive parents within the country (Indian Ministry of Women and Child Development, 2012). The judgement determined that the ratio of in-country to intercountry adoption should be 80:20 of the total adoptions processed annually (from January to December) excluding children with learning or developmental disabilities. Hence, only once 80% of domestic adoptions were filled would the remaining 20% be open for international adoptions (Indian Ministry of Law and Justice, 2015). This resulted in ‘the draft declaration of social and legal principles relating to the protection and welfare of children, with special reference to foster placement and adoption of children nationally and internationally’ (Apparao, 1997: 4–5). Due to this judgement, previously open adoptions within the common law/kinship framework became closed, and the links between the birth and adoptive families were severed with none of the identifying information being shared (Apparao, 1997; Momin, 2008). These were also considered ‘clean break adoptions’, without any contact between the birth and adoptive families, unless future contact was specified by the birth families or by the child when they turned 18. Considering the stigma associated with motherhood out of wedlock and institutional adoption, the closed system was welcomed by non-kin domestic adoptive parents and birth families (Mitra, Konantambigi and Datta, 2019: 360).

The move from analogue to digital

In the 1990s, a move towards making adoptions more child-centric emerged, focusing on the wellbeing of children (Apparao, 1997). In 1990, the then Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA) was established (renamed the Central Adoption Resource Authority in 1998), a statutory body of the Ministry of Women and Child Development responsible for regulating and supervising both domestic and international adoptions through the systematic guidelines of the Juvenile Justice Act (JJ Act) of 1986. CARA’s primary role was to monitor and regulate the entire adoption process (Ananthalakshmi et al., 2001). This led to the proliferation of adoption agencies in each region, called Voluntary Coordinating Agencies, to assist the court in determining that ‘sufficient opportunity’ was given to every child to find a home within India. Subsequently, the JJ Act of 1986 was replaced with the secularised JJ Act (the Care and Protection Act) of 2000 which allowed prospective adoptive parents from all religions to adopt a child and, in 2003, India ratified the Hague Convention on intercountry adoption. Consequently, these systematic efforts by the Indian Government led to a gradual increase in non-family domestic adoptions from 1,424 in 1995 to 2,350 in 2004 (Selman, 2020).

Despite these improvements, data for the number of children awaiting adoption and the number of prospective adoptive parents remained in analogue form, scattered across state-based agencies with disparate numbering and private adoption agencies that did not provide data. Thus, it was a challenge for CARA to collate these data and keep track of the overall number of prospective adoptive parents and adoptees, and the adoption system required a more standardised mechanism to gather this information from across the country. Only in the early 21st century did the Indian Government seek to expand the impact of digitalisation in all sectors by launching the Digital India project in July 2015 to transform India into a digitally empowered society and knowledge economy.³ This initiative, with a total overlay of approximately 14 billion USD, aimed at fostering digital literacy, transforming the country with easy access to technology and making all government services available via online or mobile platforms (Maiti, Castellacci and Melchior, 2019).

Hence, an effort was made to digitalise the adoption process and unify the data from across India under one central database managed by CARA. This initiative was enforced through the revised JJ Act of 2015 and called CARINGS. The CARINGS platform enabled adoption agencies to upload the data on prospective adoptive parents and the number of children awaiting adoption, as well as allowing prospective parents to register, track their position in the waiting list and be part of each step towards formalising adoption. Digitalisation brings together data, people and places on one platform. This was the first time the increased application of technology in adoption was witnessed in India. With the understanding that people generate data, and that the data then influences the decisions made for the people (Bode and Kristensen, 2022), the following sections map out the digitalisation of adoption and those connected with it in the pre- and post-adoption phases.

Mapping framework methodology

The present mapping framework (Figure 1) uses a post-phenomenological methodology, which helps focus on the interactions between the economic, technological and sociocultural realms (DeLanda, 2006; Marcus and Saka, 2006; Orlikowski, 2007) behind this digitalisation. As technology and society both derive meaning from and continuously influence one another through integration (Rosenberger, 2014), neither can be studied in isolation: ‘Technology becomes a means through which the user relates to the world in a transformed manner’ (Ihde, 1990: 92). In this context, the post-phenomenological perspective of our study facilitates the examination of the meaningful integration and interaction of the system and people, forming the basis of our wider ongoing qualitative study which was designed based on this mapping. The study follows the American Psychological Association’s ethical guidelines, and the required approvals were obtained from the stakeholders in the adoption system. The lived experiences and perceptions of the participants associated with digital adoption were recorded using in-depth interviews. A total of 16 interviews were conducted over the course of one-and-a-half years (2021–22), with four social workers, six potential adoptive parents, two adoption lawyers, two medical professionals and two mental health professionals from different cities across India. The first-level data analysis was used to frame the discussion around this study and to understand the association between technology and people, and how each is influenced by the other. The following sections present examples from our ongoing qualitative study.

Digital process in the pre- and post-adoption phases: perspectives from social workers, adoption consultants and prospective adoptive parents

The ‘pre-adoption phase’ of parenthood describes the period from when prospective adoptive parents contemplate adopting a child to when they approach the adoption agencies to inquire and register. The ‘post-adoption phase’ begins when the parents are involved in rearing their children, including sharing the adoption story with their children and others, networking with other adoptive parents and attending adoption seminars or workshops (Mitra, Konantambigi and Datta, 2018). This study analyses the influence of the digital adoption system, CARINGS, during these two phases, through the experiences and perspectives of social workers, adoption consultants and prospective adoptive parents. This helps us to examine the effectiveness of CARINGS in terms of how the system was designed to function and how it is actually functioning in practice.

Social workers and adoption consultants

Prior to digitalisation, adoption social workers in India maintained the records of prospective adoptive parents in the pre-adoption phase using paper records. The agency who was contacted by the prospective adopters was solely responsible for completing all the steps involved in the adoption formalisation, including preparing the home study report, medical tests, matching the child, the medical tests of the child, adoption orders and then two years of post-adoption follow-up. This process gave power to adoption social workers, who were seen in the role of counsellors, closely understanding the families and then matching children with them. The decision-making power rested with the agencies, therefore; this created a bond between social workers and adoptive families, in which comfort and a sense of belonging were valued. Yet, following digitalisation, the process of the agency as a single point of contact changed. The aim of the digital adoption approach was to decentralise the power of adoption agencies as decision-makers and to provide parents with greater transparency. Therefore, CARA was charged with dividing responsibility among the different adoption agencies, selecting one agency to conduct the home study report and upload it to the system and another to complete the paperwork for the medical and psychological evaluation of the parents. Prospective adopters could register online when all the paperwork was complete. Under the digital system, the child is matched only by CARA and not by adoption agencies. Each step towards adoption formalisation is completed digitally, with minimal interaction between the agencies and adoptive families. Our findings indicate that adoption social workers agree that despite CARINGS providing clear data on the children awaiting adoption and the number of parents on the waiting list across India, it has made adoptions mechanical. For example, one of the adoption social workers from Mumbai stated:

The new system is good to organise information but it’s absolutely a mechanical one, we don’t get to know parents the way we did earlier. It’s all so computerised, there is no human touch.

This has meant that they do not know the prospective adopters and completing the documentation within the period is more important than knowing the parents or forming a bond with them. The views of adoption consultants (e.g., medical and mental health professionals) were similar; they found CARINGS to be effective but limited in terms of getting to know the families. One of the Bangalore-based adoption consultants reported:

There is a pressure on completing the paperwork on time and uploading it to the system. This may be good to decrease the waiting period for the families, but then emotional component and the bond with adoptive families must be kept aside with this system.

With the new system, the human element of forming a bond with prospective parents was therefore missing in the pre-adoption phase.

After digitalisation, the roles of social workers and agencies also changed in the post-adoption phase (Simmonds, 2010). Having the task of completing the two-year follow-up with each adoptive family and uploading all the documents to the system, social workers were now seen as information providers and collectors, with little interaction with adoptive families. A clear role for both domestic and international adoption social workers and consultants was defined. Our findings indicate that adoption agencies and social workers perceived the new digital system as minimising their decision-making power to a single nodal body: CARA. Social workers articulated their dissatisfaction with the system, criticising its narrow view of the socio-emotional aspect of adoption. For example, a Delhi-based adoption social worker shared:

We do not get to know parents the way we were involved in the process. We are now doing all the paperwork and even have no role in matching the child. The relationship that developed with exchange of stories with adoptive families will be missed with this new system.

This kind of perception impacted on the necessary transition from analogue to digital record-keeping as they were slower in adapting to the changes with greater criticism involved. Amidst this critical environment, many training sessions were organised by the Government to help adoption social workers become equipped to use the system, informed about it and efficient at using it. Our study found that both the new system and the people had an impact on one another. Several modifications were made to the system based on the suggestions of social workers, adoption consultants and prospective adopters. The goal was to make this new system user-friendly while maintaining the ethics of privacy, confidentiality, informed consent and boundaries (Reamer and Siegel, 2007; Roby and White, 2010).

Prospective adoptive parents

In the pre-adoption phase, when adoption is being contemplated and prospective adopters are in the process of registering themselves on the system, different routes to learning about the steps involved in adoption are followed. An Australian study of 459 adoptive parents found that prior to adoption, 45% of prospective adopters used social media sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, to find out more about adoption. A majority of them (77.1%) relied on talking to friends, family or other parents, while a smaller percentage (37.3%) received advice from their family doctor (Baker, Sanders and Morawska, 2017). Similarly, an Indian qualitative study with adoptive parents highlighted that in the pre-adoption phase, prospective adopters preferred to seek information about adoption from their friends and family and through direct contact with adoption agencies by visits or phone calls (Mitra, 2017). However, this has changed since digitalisation, with prospective adopters actively using social media to approach other adoptive parents for guidance on paperwork. The use of social media to seek knowledge is part of the wider digitalised system in which contemporary societies exist and function. Our first level analysis of findings indicates that with better access to technology and to the systematic information available through CARINGS, prospective adopters prefer to contact CARA’s online helpdesk via phone or email. Prospective adopters reported that this was more gratifying because the information they requested came directly from the source. A Mumbai-based adoptive mother shared:

Whatever my concerns were, I would call CARA helpline directly or email them. I would get my answers directly from them so why rely on other sources?

Moreover, CARA provides a comprehensive online information platform to understand the adoption process and its requirements and to set clear expectations about the timescales involved between registering for adoption and knowing one’s place in the referral list, which also saves time and effort for prospective adoptive parents. The mediating role of adoption agencies has been removed and all information for parents is available online. This reduces the need for prospective adopters to be dependent on social workers and social media for clarifications.

However, CARINGS has its limitations for prospective adoptive parents in the pre-adoption phase. Our findings suggest that these parents encounter a cognitive state of online vigilance. Vorderer, Krömer and Schneider (2016) highlight that this state is an outcome of our permanent connection with online content and communication. In the present study, adoptive parents shared their pre-adoption experiences through the digital system, indicating that after completing the registration, they must regularly check their account in CARINGS for any referral made for them. The reason cited by the participants was that they only get a 48-hour window to respond after a referral is made and if they fail to check the system during that period, they could miss the opportunity and be pushed considerably further down the waiting list. A Bangalore-based adoptive father shared:

We kept on checking our online account each day, we even had put reminders for that. We had a referral missed and then our number was below 38 other parents. It made us so upset, we complained but the system was new, and it was our bad luck.

It is difficult to assess the number of prospective adopters who have missed a referral, thereby creating a constant state of vigilance and mental preoccupation with monitoring the online system (Reinecke et al., 2018). More recently, CARINGS has made a provision to send email notifications when a child is matched with them. This provides a good example of how technology influences users and how users then influence and modify technology based on their needs. In this process of digitalisation, the pre-adoption phase saw the responsiveness of both the technology and prospective adopters embracing and modifying one another.

In the post-adoption phase, CARINGS made it mandatory for all adoptive parents to be followed up for a minimum of two years. The follow-up includes a progress report on the child, their social and behavioural development, family relationships post-adoption and the overall wellbeing of the child placed. This has become a way to synthesise information from the follow-up reports of both adoptive parents and social workers. In addition, CARINGS also notifies adoptive parents about the workshops and seminars organised around parenting, sharing adoption status as well as adoption meet-ups. There is also a provision to arrange counselling sessions if the parents struggle to adjust in the post-adoption phase. These are some of the new additions made to the digital system following suggestions from adoptive parents. However, other suggestions have been declined, such as a data provision for networking with other adoptive parents, as this is already provided by individual adoption agencies.

After considering stakeholders’ experiences of the digital system and their perception of its effectiveness, its challenges and limitations were analysed as part of our study. These are discussed in detail in the following section.

Challenges to the digital system

The digital adoption system in India has made the process of adoption registration potentially easier for prospective adopters and social workers. However, it does not collect data on birth families, the number of babies abandoned or in care or the number of adopted adults who want to search or find out more information. In this section, we briefly highlight the challenges faced by the system and its shortcomings in terms of the lack of data on birth families and adopted adults.

Birth parents’ data

In Western countries, an adoption plan is made by openly sharing the information available and, in some countries, making the birth family meet the prospective adopter(s) (Nobile, 2015), with technology facilitating direct communication between them. This arrangement is not possible in several Asian countries, including India, where adoption is closed and no contact between the birth and adoptive families is allowed. The data recorded from the birth families are confidential and only made available if consent is given by the birth parents at the time of surrendering the child. This provision is in accordance with the Adoption Regulations (India) 2017, which state that it is equally important to protect the right of birth families not to be contacted as it is to protect the rights of children. The birth parents’ information is stored by individual adoption agencies and not uploaded to CARINGS, and it is only made available to the child after they reach the age of 18. The records may be kept both in analogue and digital forms, consisting of only non-identifying information that can be shared with the adoptive parents and children. In a recent study of birth mothers in India, Oke and Lambert (2021) examined 3,609 records from 1979 to 2019, documented by an Indian care agency (Bharatiya Samaj Seva Kendra [BSSK]).⁴ The findings highlighted that the data collected on birth mothers using the analogue system included details such as age, health, marital status, nature of relationship with the birth father and occupation, whereas the information on birth fathers was minimal (Oke and Lambert, 2021).

The analogue system is still used by most adoption agencies across India to record birth family data. This can be considered from two perspectives. On the positive side, not digitalising the birth parents’ records and keeping them with individual adoption agencies helps to maintain the confidentiality of the data and is in line with the clean-break approach to adoptions in India. With technology having its own disadvantages, such as data being leaked or misused, keeping analogue records of birth families is still considered safer. Some agencies in India are working towards digitalising the analogue records of birth parents, although there is no regulation to make this mandatory. On the negative side, this prevents having a centralised database for birth families who surrender a child or those who have or have not given consent to meet their child in the future. This presents a limitation of the system. Therefore, in line with the Digital India initiative, centralising the data of birth families should be further examined.

Data of adoptees involved in root search

The importance of maintaining post-adoption contact between adopted children, particularly those placed at an older age, and their birth families is now increasingly accepted in social work practice in the West (O’Neill, McAuley and Loughran, 2016). In Western countries, open adoptions have encouraged the process of search and reunion, and post-adoption contact with birth relatives has been made either directly (face to face) or indirectly (‘letterbox contact’), typically mediated by an adoption agency. More recently, technology, especially social media, has been used to establish virtual contact, with or without professional guidance (Fursland, 2010; Reamer and Siegel, 2021). Virtual contact is defined as ‘post-adoption contact activities between adopted children and birth relatives via social networking sites, email, video calls, or text messaging’ (Greenhow et al., 2015: 2). Greenhow and colleagues (2016) interviewed 11 adoptive parents and six adopted children who had experienced virtual contact, for example through Facebook, and it was found to be successful when the traditional method of contact had been used previously and ‘a general climate of openness was there within the adoptive family’ (Neil, Beek and Ward, 2013: 244). There is more openness in the West regarding talking about adoption to the child and others, which has been mentioned in several Western studies. Such openness in adoption communication facilitates contact with the birth families; however, there may be risks involved when contact, especially virtual, occurs without any adoption agency or social worker mediation. Virtual contact is not seen as a replacement for ‘real’, face-to-face contact but as a positive way of supplementing existing relationships, and it is valued more if adoptive parents support it (Shier, 2021). Within India’s closed adoption system, this type of virtual contact is not possible. Only non-identifying information is available to an adopted adult unless otherwise consented to by the birth family, and the new digital system does not provide data on the number of adopted individuals who would like to make contact or have done so. These data are stored by individual state-based agencies and not centralised through CARINGS. According to the Indian Adoption Regulations 2022, various provisions have also been implemented to make root searches more systematic. For example, the authorities concerned (e.g., an authorised foreign adoption agency, Indian diplomatic mission, State Adoption Resource Agency, District Child Protection Unit or specialised adoption agency) may facilitate a root search when contacted by older adopted individuals, who can apply independently online with the state-based agency.

Furthermore, the process of root search differs for domestic and international adoptees. The concept of sharing, discussing and searching for birth parents is more of a struggle for domestic adoptees, as many Indian adoptive parents decide to keep their adoption stories secret or treat the sharing process as a one-time event (Bhargava, 2005; Mitra, Konantambigi and Datta, 2019; Momin, 2008). It has been observed that in both rural and urban settings in India, adoptive parents are uncomfortable disclosing to their child that they were adopted (Bhaskar et al., 2012). Yet many domestic adoptees reported satisfaction with their visits to the agency from where they were adopted as a toddler and like spending time with other children at the agency, meeting staff, observing agency activities, volunteering and going through their adoption file (Oke et al., 2015). On the contrary, an Indian child adopted abroad has greater openness in talking about adoption with their foreign parents, visiting India, and possibly beginning a root search through a digital platform. Not all adopted individuals share the need to look deeply into their past, and some have no desire to search (Oke, Mitra and O’Brien, 2023). Moreover, root search may not lead to successful outcomes in India, as the stigma attached to unmarried birth mothers forces them to surrender their babies and keep their identity a secret. Therefore, apart from being the central database and registration system for both prospective and adoptive parents, the digital system needs to develop ways to cater to the questions of individuals who have been adopted and to provide networking and counselling options. This should include a root search provision in the new digital system, allowing those who have been adopted to register and access data. The current gap in the new digital system requires future intervention and more research to create a single platform for those who have birth- and search-related questions.

Data storage and ethical practices

Adoption records in India are now stored digitally for both the pre- and post-adoption phases. These records contain sensitive and confidential information, including the medical and psychological evaluation of prospective adoptive parents and adopted children in the agency case history files. With the new digital system comes a responsibility to understand the privacy standards for such records and the ethics of data protection, and to ensure confidentiality (Reamer, 2017). The danger of data leakage or inappropriate disclosure with an errant or purposeful click of the mouse is always present (Siegel and Smith, 2012). Therefore, CARA regularly organises training seminars on the ethics of record-keeping and data protection, including the vulnerability of the system itself to data leaks. These training seminars are conducted for users who are directly involved in digital records maintenance, including social workers, medical doctors, psychologists and district magistrates, and provide guidance on safeguarding data and ethical gatekeeping practices. They have become an essential focus of CARA under the Digital India initiative.

Conclusion and implications

Digitalisation has brought technology into the sensitive space of adoption to provide a comprehensive and modern platform for prospective adoptive parents and social workers across India. This study presents an original mapping of the digitalisation of adoption in India and how its various elements (people and technology) are embedded in the country’s sociocultural context. As technology expands within the field of child adoption, it paves the way for new learning and opportunities to be examined and explored.

This study opens various avenues of research and practice necessary for interventions to India’s digital adoption system, which are summarised below according to themes influenced by Howard (2012).

Digital collaboration

Currently, the digital adoption system is perceived as user-friendly and time-saving, but a digital collaboration is required among adoption social workers, adoption consultants and adoptive families to better understand the adoption process and gather more information from experts. This can be further utilised to create an open platform for adopted individuals who are not yet part of the digital system. However, such collaboration must also encourage parents from low-income families to participate in online programmes. There is a ‘usage gap’, where parents from different classes and caste backgrounds are unable to participate in online programmes due to a lack of awareness or limited technological means. Therefore, for diverse digitisation processes, different parental groups are required to collaborate and communicate within this system (and to be enabled and encouraged to do so) to make it more user-friendly for future generations.

Digital assessments

The digital assessments of prospective adoptive parents by medical and mental health professionals are available in the system. Similar assessment reports of prospective adoptive children are also uploaded. On the one hand, digitisation has made the data more central and paved the way for timely evaluation and referral processes, which has, in turn, reduced the waiting time for prospective adopters. On the other hand, in our qualitative study, prospective adopters suggested a digital assessment report of all the CARA registered adoption agencies across India. Knowing about the services provided, the staff of the agency and the adoption statistics per agency would add to the effective decision-making by prospective parents.

Digital learning

Digital learning in the form of training seminars, workshops and parenting programmes has been incorporated into the new system. There is a systematic effort by CARA to organise training sessions for adoption professionals and awareness workshops for adoptive parents. Other methods of digital learning are also seen in the form of digital advertisements (to spread awareness about adoption and the adoption process through CARA) and e-booklets and e-pamphlets consisting of information on the adoption process. CARA has also associated itself with various non-governmental organisations working in the field of adoption in India, such as Families of Joy,⁵ to implement different training programmes for parents. The focus is on creating greater openness in communication about the adoption story and process. However, India still lacks certified modules for prospective and adoptive parents and a gap between the supply and demand of such programmes remains. Though many are delivered face-to-face, they are limited in providing credible presenters, recruiting, engaging and retaining parents (Koerting et al., 2013; Spoth and Redmond, 2000). A hybrid model could be adopted for these programmes to include a greater number of parents and experienced and knowledgeable presenters, and to create an engaging and informed environment.

Data and analytics are required, with a focus on root searches

There are few studies on adult adoptees in India, and those on root searches form a small subset of the available literature. However, these studies do not address the use of virtual contact or digital records by adopted individuals. The digital platform is limited in creating a database for individuals adopted domestically and internationally who want to conduct a root search and ask birth-related questions.

The field of child adoption is under-researched in India, and most discussions occur through studies conducted in the West. Western literature provides a lens through which to understand what and who is shaping the adoption field, but the discussion changes when it comes to applicability in the Indian context, where caste, class, religion and the closed adoption system influence the policy and practice of adoption. In this context, this study has examined the influence of technology on adoption in India by mapping the digitalisation of adoption and understanding its role in the pre- and post-adoption phases. The mapping framework provides a comprehensive view of the integration of technology and people in relation to those who influence, those who are influenced and the data available. The digitalisation of adoption has created a centralised database, solving the problem of the scattered data of adoptive parents and adoptees. However, the wider consequences of not including data on birth parents and adopted individuals involved in root searches are yet to be investigated, albeit with caution to ensure ethics and data confidentiality are maintained.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Sahana Mitra

Matthias Bode

Notes

Sahana Mitra is a developmental psychologist with Saaya Health, Bahrain and a visiting assistant professor in the Department of Psychology, University American College Skopje, North Macedonia.

Saraswathi Bhaskar is a counselling psychologist at Bloom Health Care, Velachery, Tamil Nadu, India.

Matthias Bode is an associate professor in the College of Business and Law, Royal University for Women, Bahrain.

References

Adoption Regulations (India) (2017) Adoption Regulations 2017. Available at: wcd.nic.in/acts/adoption-regulations-2017

Adoption Regulations (India) (2022) Adoption Regulations 2022. Available at: wcd.nic.in/act/adoption-regulations-2022

Ananthalakshmi

SGL

Mushtaq

Jayanthi

and Charulatha (2001) Child Adoption and Thereafter – A Psycho Analytical Study. Chennai, India: ICCW.

Apparao

(1997) International adoption of children: The Indian scene. International Journal of Behavioral Development 20(1): 3–16.

Bajpai

(2021) The Owl Delivered the Good News All Night Long: Folk Tales, Legends and Modern Lore of India. New Delhi, India: Rupa Publications.

Baker

Sanders

Morawska

(2017) Who uses online parenting support? A cross-sectional survey exploring Australian parents’ internet use for parenting. Journal of Child and Family Studies 26: 916–927.

Bharadwaj

(2003) Why adoption is not an option in India: The visibility of infertility, the secrecy of donor insemination, and other cultural complexities. Social Science & Medicine 56(9): 1867–1880.

Bhargava

(2005) Adoption in India – Policies and Experiences. New Delhi, India: Sage.

Bhaskar

Hoksbergen

van Baar

Mothiram

ter Laak

(2012) Adoption in India – The past, present and the future trends. Journal of Psychosocial Research 7: 321–327.

10.

Bhattacharya

(1990) Motherhood in Ancient India. Review of Women Studies, Economic and Political Weekly 25(42–43): 50. Available at: www.epw.in/journal/1990/42-43/review-womens-studies-review-issues-specials/motherhood-ancient-india.html

11.

Bode

Kristensen

(2022) From techno-utopianism to personal panopticon and beyond: A call for a revised self-tracking research agenda. In: Belk

Llamas

(eds) The Routledge Companion to Digital Consumption, 2nd edn. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 269–283.

12.

DeLanda

(2006) A New Philosophy of Society: Assemblage Theory and Social Complexity. London: Continuum.

13.

Fursland

(2010) Facing up to Facebook: A Survival Guide for Adoptive Families. London: BAAF.

14.

Gangopadhyay

Mathur

(2021) Examining lived experiences of infertility and perceptions toward the adoption of children in urban India. Adoption Quarterly 24(3): 229–249.

15.

Greenhow

Hackett

Jones

Meins

(2015) Adoptive family experiences of post-adoption contact in an internet era. Child & Family Social Work 22(S1): 44–52.

16.

Greenhow

Hackett

Jones

Meins

(2016) The maintenance of traditional and technological forms of post-adoption contact. Child Abuse Review 25(5): 373–385.

17.

Hoksbergen

RAC

Gokhale

(1986) Adoption in Worldwide Perspective: A Review of Programs, Policies and Legislation in 14 Countries. Lisse, the Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.

18.

Howard

(2012) Untangling the Web: The Internet’s Transformative Impact on Adoption. New York, NY: Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. Available at: hopscotchadoptions.org/pdf/Untangling%20the%20Web%2013-13-12%20Final.pdf

19.

Ihde

(1990) Technology and the Lifeworld. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

20.

Indian Ministry of Law and Justice (2015) The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Available at: cara.nic.in/PDF/JJ%20act%202015.pdf

21.

Indian Ministry of Women and Child Development (2012) Annual Report 2012–2013. Available at: wcd.nic.in/sites/default/files/AR2012-13.pdf

22.

Kane

(1993) The movement of children for international adoption: An epidemiological perspective. Social Science Journal 30(4): 323–339.

23.

Koerting

Smith

Knowles

Latter

Elsey

McCann

Sonuga-Barke

(2013) Barriers to, and facilitators of, parenting programmes for childhood behaviour problems: A qualitative synthesis of studies of parents’ and professionals’ perceptions. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry 22(11): 653–670.

24.

Lilani

(1995) Adoption of children from India. In: Jaffe

(ed.) Intercountry Adoptions: Laws and Perspectives of Sending Countries. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff, pp. 23–27.

25.

Mahtani

(1994) A Study of the 3 Year Old Publicity Campaign Implemented by the Indian Association for Promotion of Adoption and Child Welfare (Documentation and Assessment of Impact). Mumbai, India: TISS.

26.

Maiti

Castellacci

Melchior

(2019) Digitalisation and Development: Issues for India and Beyond. Singapore: Springer.

27.

Marcus

Saka

(2006) Assemblage. Theory, Culture & Society 23(2–3):101–106.

28.

Mishra

(2013) Moksha and the Hindu Worldview. Psychology and Developing Societies 25(1): 21–42.

29.

Mitra

(2017) Parenthood Through Adoption: An Indian Experience. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Tata Institute of Social Sciences, India.

30.

Mitra

Konantambigi

Datta

(2018) A literature review of non-family domestic adoptions in India: Lessons from other countries. Indian Journal of Social Work 79(4): 415–436.

31.

Mitra

Konantambigi

Datta

(2019) Adoption sharing in closed adoption system: Experiences of Indian adoptive parents. Indian Journal of Social Work 80(3): 359–378.

32.

Mohanty

Ahn

Chokkanathan

(2017) Adoption disclosure: Experiences of Indian domestic adoptive parents. Child & Family Social Work 22 (S1): 1–11.

33.

Momin

(2008) Sociology of Adoption. Mumbai, India: Rawat Publications.

34.

Narang

(1982) Adoption in a hospital setting. Indian Journal of Social Work 42(4): 419–428.

35.

Neil

Beek

Ward

(2013) Contact After Adoption: A Follow up in Late Adolescence. Norwich: Centre for Research on Children and Families, University of East Anglia. Available at: www.uea.ac.uk/documents/3437903/0/Contact+report+NEIL+dec+20+v2+2013.pdf/f2d766c7-39eb-49a3-93b7-1f1368a071a1

36.

Nobile

(2015) Adoptions gone awry: Enhancing adoption outcomes through postadoption services and federal and state laws imposing criminal sanctions for private internet rehoming. Family Court Review 53(3): 474–486.

37.

Oke

Groza

Park

Kalyanvala

Shetty

(2015) The perceptions of young adult adoptees in India on their emotional well-being. Adoption & Fostering 39(4): 343–355.

38.

Oke

Lambert

(2021) What Do We Know About Birth Families: An Exploration of Birth Parents Records in Relation to Surrender of Babies in the Indian and Irish context. International Conference on Adoption Research (online), 6–9 July, Milan, Italy.

39.

Oke

Mitra

O’Brien

(2023 – in press) Growing up adopted in India: Implications for therapeutic and clinical practice. In: Bertocci

Deeg

(eds) Handbook on the Clinical Treatment of Adopted Adolescents and Young Adults. New York, NY: Routledge.

40.

Orlikowski

(2007) Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization Studies 28: 1435–1448.

41.

O’Neill

McAuley

Loughran

(2016) Post‐adoption reunion sibling relationships: Factors facilitating and hindering the development of sensitive relationships following reunion in adulthood. Child & Family Social Work 21(2): 218–227.

42.

Reamer

(2017) Evolving ethical standards in the digital age. Australian Social Work 70(2): 148–159.

43.

Reamer

Siegel

(2007) Ethical issues in open adoption: Implications for practice. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services 88(1): 11–18.

44.

Reamer

Siegel

(2021) Adoption ethics in a digital world: Challenges and best practices. Adoption Quarterly 24(1): 69–88.

45.

Reinecke

Klimmt

Meier

Reich

Hefner

Knop-Huelss

Rieger

Vorderer

(2018) Permanently online and permanently connected: Development and validation of the Online Vigilance Scale. PLoS One 13(10): article no. e0205384.

46.

Roby

White

(2010) Adoption activities on the internet: A call for regulation. Social Work 55(3): 203–212.

47.

Rosenberger

(2014) Multistability and the Agency of Mundane Artifacts: from Speed Bumps to Subway Benches. Human Studies 37: 369–392.

48.

Selman

(2020) International Adoption from China and India 1992–2018. In: Gao

Baikady

Govindappa

Cheng

S-L

(eds) Social Welfare in India and China. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 393–415.

49.

Sengupta

(2011) Babies from the Heart. New Delhi, India: Ebury Press.

50.

Shier

(2021) Negotiating reunion in intercountry adoption using social media and technology. The British Journal of Social Work 51(2): 408–426.

51.

Siegel

Smith

(2012) Openness in Adoption: From Secrecy and Shame to Knowledge and Connections. New York: Donaldson Adoption Institute. Available at: www.adoptioninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2012_03_OpennessInAdoption.pdf

52.

Simmonds

(2010) Foreword. In: Fursland

(2010) Facing up to Facebook: A Survival Guide for Adoptive Families. London: BAAF, pp. 1–3.

53.

Spoth

Redmond

(2000) Research on family engagement in preventive interventions: Toward improved use of scientific findings in primary prevention practice. Journal of Primary Prevention 21(2): 267–284.

54.

The Supreme Court of India (1984) Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India, 1984 AIR 469. Available at: www.escr-net.org/caselaw/2015/lakshmi-kant-pandey-v-union-india-1984-air-469

55.

UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2022) World Population Prospects 2022: Summary of Results. UN DESA/POP/2022/TR/NO. 3. Available at: www.un.org/development/desa/pd/sites/www.un.org.development.desa.pd/files/wpp2022_summary_of_results.pdf

56.

Vorderer

Krömer

Schneider

(2016) Permanently online – Permanently connected: Explorations into university students’ use of social media and mobile smart devices. Computers in Human Behavior 63: 694–703.