A group of adoptees or individuals brought up the human rights abuse cases to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in Korea, which was given 367 cases of adoptee records from the four adoption agencies. Of those, about 60 cases of adoption records were supposedly to have been reviewed for nearly three years. The TRC reported the key findings in their press conference to the public on March 26, 2025. The TRC has been very sympathetic to the angry adoptees and handed down the guilty verdict in their conclusion by blaming the government’s lack of oversight in guidance and control of the intercountry adoption processes.
Some of the key findings are follows:
- Rather than strengthening domestic child welfare, the government actively utilized overseas adoption, which does not require a budget from an economic perspective, and leaves all procedures for overseas adoption to private adoption agencies, without providing proper management and supervision.
- Granting the head of an adoption agency, a key stakeholder in overseas adoption, absolute authority to exercise influence over the child's life, such as guardianship and consent to adoption, and allowing large-scale overseas sending of domestic children.
- During the overseas adoption process, information about the child's original identity and family was lost, distorted, or falsified, and appropriate protective measures were not implemented even after sending the child overseas.
Clearly there have been some mistakes in the past processes, and I feel very sympathetic to all those adoptees that have been impacted by the errors. It’s regrettable that the adoption processes were not handled better in the past.
But the TRC’s investigation on just 60 cases to condemn the
entire intercountry adoption of over 175,000 cases is too narrow and
inconclusive at best. The sample size is 0.03% of the entire adoptee population. TRC’s conclusion
was just one sided and not complete. It would have been better for TRC to
categorically summarize how many of those 60 cases resulted in false records,
or switching a child, etc. Instead, the
TRC seemed to paint all adoptions were fraught with errors.
It certainly did not factor in the historical or cultural
perspectives that led to such a large number of children being abandoned or
given up for adoption. And why the agencies (or by the government) felt the
necessity of sending the children abroad for adoption.
If the TRC considered the following factors in their
conclusion, it would have given them a more complete picture of what had
happened and why it happened.
1. For centuries,
Korean culture looked down on unwed mothers giving birth out of marriage, and
it brought shame to families involved and the families tried to hide their
shame by abandoning children and pretending nothing happened. This is the main
reason for so many abandonments or relinquishments by unwed mothers. However,
there were a few bold and caring unwed mothers that wanted to keep their
babies, but often the pressures from their parents and grandparents caused them
to give up their babies.
2. There was no
clear law or procedures in place at the time, and many orphanages or agencies
did not have enough information to handle the homeless children, especially to
return the children to biological families.
So, judging the past processes or practices that were legal and
acceptable and approved by the government in those days with the current
standards or law is unfair by the TRC.
3. The children
were born at the time of history when Korea was poor and there was no means or
system in place to find the biological parents. Often parents would take their
children into orphanages and leave them there. For example, when I was in an
orphanage, I saw this happen before my very own eyes. People were poor and
could not take care of their children and taking them to an orphanage was a
solution for the parents as they don’t have to worry about caring for or
feeding another mouth. Some of the
parents took the children to markets and left them there and never
returned. This was especially true for
the children with special needs. In those days these scenes were common sights. Children were found with no identifying
information. The computerized system did
not come into place until the late 90’s. So, when a child was lost, he was
immediately reported to the police, which would later take the child to an
orphanage.
4. Often when a
child was admitted to an orphanage, there was no identifying information with
the child. Some children knew their names, but that was the only information
the children had. For example, when I
was admitted to an orphanage, my name was the only thing I knew. I had no knowledge of when I was born or
where I came from, and I did not know the names of my parents. I was one of the children that was admitted
to an orphanage with no identifying information. The orphanage made up my birth
date on the day I was admitted. Often an
orphanage would assign a birth date and would register a child under the
orphanage director’s name. Later when the child is transferred to an adoption
agency, the agency would receive the same identifying information from the
orphanage. However, in many cases the identifying information and other records
were not transferred to the agencies, so the agencies were left to assign their
own identifying information and register the children. Often the records from orphanages did not
come with the children when the agencies took custody of the children. So, the
agencies had to make up the identifying information for the children. This was
common practice in those days as there were no regulations or laws that
governed the processes.
5. The
authorities had no way of finding the identity of the child as there was no
computerized system. A child who has been separated from the birth parents may
have already been registered under the family records. But when the child is abandoned or sent into
an orphanage, the parents ignore the important information. So, the orphanage
would create new information and register the child. It so happens that during
the birth search process by adoptees, when an adoptee finds two separate forms
of birth registry and other conflicting documents, it is natural for the
adoptee to suspect the agencies of falsifying the birth documents.
6. Adoption
agencies’ only motivation was humanitarian reasons, not so much on making
profit for Korea, like the TRC accuses. It was such a small portion of the
entire economy. The monetary motive was something the anti-adoption groups have
always accused the agencies by smearing them. I remember serving as a board of
directors at the US-based Holt, and each year we celebrated the number of
children we placed into homes rather than celebrate how much profit was made.
We cared more about the children’s welfare in providing homes and never once
celebrated the increased profits.
7. Perhaps the biggest problem with TRC’s conclusion was the complete absence of what would have happened had there been no adoptions in the first place. Without adoption, almost all the children would have been placed in orphanages. All 367 adoptees that have submitted the complaints to the TRC would have grown up in institutions. Would their lives have been better had they stayed in Korea? I seriously doubt it, though there may be a few exceptions.
There have been numerous studies worldwide on the impact of
institutionalization on children. From physical and psychological development
delays to lower IQ levels were the results. On top of that, the children
suffered from delays in social skills which tremendously impacted negatively on
their growth.
As for public education, without parental stimulation or
involvement in the lives of the children, the children in institutions fell far
below in academic performance when compared to the children with parents. When a child reaches the age of 18, the child
experiences a forced emancipation from the orphanage system with very little
preparation to survive in the society, which very much limits his/her higher
education opportunity which was pretty much nonexistent in the old days.
This is still a challenge as most of the orphans do not want
to go to college despite the government aids available to them. The Korean society in general discriminates
against the children with orphan background, where he/she is shunned from
getting good jobs or being able to marry someone. It is very common for parents to deny
marriage of their child to a person with an orphan background.
The Korean government and the adoption agencies knew the
situation in Korea very well, and they opted to provide families for the
children overseas rather than to allow them to suffer in Korea. Also, the stark
reality was that Koreans simply don’t adopt their own kind due to centuries of
old Confucian tradition of valuing family bloodline and not being able to
accept someone from outside. Although the adoption culture has significantly
improved over the years, the stigma still remains for much of the Korean
population.
8. Another
fallacy with the TRC findings is that there is absolutely no consideration for
around 15,000 orphans that remain in 260 orphanages in Korea. What about their
rights? What about the injustices done to them by their biological parents
abandoning them or unable to care for them? Who will speak on their behalf?
Why doesn’t TRC do the investigations into these unfortunate
children and speak about their human rights violations? These children are voiceless, and they remain
ignored. Adoptees had chances in their lives, but the orphans don’t have such a
chance. Who will speak on behalf of the children in orphanages?
What I see is that the angry adoptees are misunderstanding
the true motive or reasons for their adoptions. It was simply meant to give
them a new chance in life as opposed to what might have happened had they
remained in Korea. This was the decision
made by the Korean government at the time and the adoption agencies helped to
achieve it.
Sure, there were some errors in the processes, some agencies more than others. Over the years as the country prospered and in keeping with the international laws on adoption, many of the errors in the adoption processes were corrected to meet the current required standards. But who knows in 20 or 30 years later that today’s standards will not be adequate when compared to the later laws?
What the angry adoptees are doing simply boils down to this.
They are upset over how they were adopted abroad when in fact Korea tried to
help them and find new opportunities that Korea could not offer. They are mistaken to believe that had they
stayed in Korea that they would be reunited with birth parents. Reunification
may occur, but history shows that this is extremely rare. They are mistaken
that their lives would have been better had they stayed in Korea.
There are so many orphans in institutions, and for most of
the orphans, parents never return or even care to stay in touch. So, when orphans leave their institutions,
they harbor great anger in their hearts against their birth parents. With so
much prejudice against the people with orphan backgrounds and with limited
opportunities for them, only a few succeed in life. One orphan adult who was a
taxi driver, said that the success rate for people with an orphan background is
only 7%. I don’t know how he got this data, but he may have concluded this
perhaps after meeting with so many of his contemporaries. He considered himself
as a success as he was a married man and driving a taxi.
Life is full of complexities, where a person is not
guaranteed to be happy nor have a stable life. Many children are born and
raised by their biological parents. Some succeed, and some fail. Why couldn’t
this also be true for adopted children? Some succeed, and some fail. So why put
the blame on adoption? The important thing is to give children the
opportunities to succeed in life through family, and through adoption. But the
chance to succeed in life is greatly diminished had the adoptees remained in institutions
in Korea.
As for me, if the agencies had to make up my identifying information and register me despite there may be a separate registration exist somewhere, I would be grateful for my adoption regardless as I was given a chance at new life in America. And I am very grateful.
