In Part One I explained why there are orphanages full of children but very few are available for adoption. In this post I want to talk
about factors that discourage parents from adopting even those children who are
available. Although I’ve researched this topic, if you notice any mistakes or
misinformation please do let me know. I am by no means an expert. I am also
very aware of the dangers of the kinds of generalisations I’m making here. It’s
impossible to write this sort of article without saying things like “Japanese
society treats…” or “in Japan it is seen as…”. Of course Japan, no less than any other
country, is comprised of diverse individuals. Many of them I am sure would
disagree with the various opinions and prejudices I describe, and I hope that
in reading this you can remember that generalisations are not universally
applicable.
Adoption Law
Japan has a long history of adoption…
of adults. This is a
very practical way, within a patriarchal system, to ensure smooth inheritance.
If one doesn’t have a son to inherit the family name and business, one can
adopt a suitable successor. This may be an extended family member, a gifted
apprentice or trusted employee, or, if one has a daughter, a son-in-law. Think
how different world history could have been if Henry the Eighth had had
adoption as an option? These “inheritance” adoptions are not limited to the business
world or bygone days. An old classmate of mine told me about the difficulties in
her family when her younger brother refused to be adopted by their
grand-parents. To explain the situation let me back track for a moment to
introduce the family register, centre piece of every modern family law problem
in Japan
(see this post on custody disputes). Each family has a family
register, kept at their local city office. Think of it a bit like the old
family bible: each birth, marriage and death is recorded. One child, usually
but not necessarily the oldest son, will inherit and continue the parents’
register. The other children may join another family’s register through
marriage or adoption, or they may start their own register. A poignant moment
in the TV drama
14 Year Old Mother
(
14才の母) shows the titular character realising that she cannot register her baby’s birth
in her father’s register: she has to start her own “family”, with her as the
head and only other member in order to register her child. As an unwed mother
she is both symbolically and legally alone. In the case of my friend’s family,
her maternal grandparents had only one daughter and no extended family with a
superfluity of sons. That daughter married a man who was not able to take over
her family (I assume he was already inheriting his parents’ register), moving
into his register, and leaving her parents’ register empty of heirs. She had
three children, two sons and a daughter (my classmate). The elder son was
inheriting his father’s register, so the maternal grandparents wanted to adopt
the younger son. This would mean him changing his name and entering their
register. He refused however, not wanting the responsibility (there may have
been a plot of land attached to the family name that they expected him to live
on and farm, and he would have been expected to care for them (or more likely to
have his wife care for them) while living together in their family home in
their old age). The grandparents were upset and there was a lot of fighting
going on, but my classmate noted glumly that through it all neither family
expressed any thoughts of investing
her
as their heir.
In what I think is a genius MacGyvering, inheritance adoption
is used as a kind of de facto same-sex marriage arrangement by gay Japanese
couples. Since the purpose is to clarify inheritance, there is no age
restriction, meaning that one partner simply adopts the other as his or her
successor. This means that their relationship has legal status; they are
registered as a single household, and inheritance/compensation/other money
issues are covered. These inheritance adoptions do not sever the relationship
between adoptee and birth parents or entail any duty of care from adoptive
parent to adoptee.
Adoption in the sense of taking a non-biological child and
making them legally and emotionally indistinguishable from a biological child
is an entirely new concept in Japan. Legislation to create the legal framework
for this sort of adoption was only finalised in 1989.
The entire concept remains unfamiliar, particularly in the case of interracial
adoptions. Back in 2005 I was showing my family photos to some older ladies I
was having lunch with. They were confused about how my Caucasian sister and
brother-in-law had been able to have two Asian daughters. I tried to explain
adoption with the help of a dictionary, but didn’t get very far. Then one of
the ladies said that she understood, and began explaining it to the others in
Japanese. “It’s like my cats!” she said. “Momo is a pure breed I bought from a
pet shop, and Tama is a stray I started feeding then eventually took in. Her
nieces are like Tama-chan.” I repeated this story to the social worker
who is handling our adoption incidentally, and she couldn’t help laughing; apparently when she had tried to
explain her job to her grandmother the older lady had initially thought that
her job involved finding homes for cats.
The family register raises its ugly head again in the issue
of biological parents’ willingness to release their child for adoption. A child
who is raised in an orphanage appears normally on the register (in most cases).
A child who is given up for adoption will still be listed in the register, but
with the adoption noted. For a young woman, having an adopted child listed in
her register could cause any number of problems, including employment and
marriage discrimination. There will be negative consequences not only for her
but for her entire extended family. If she were to have an abortion, her
register would remain unaffected. Some obstetricians have run a black market in
matching infertile couples with patients experiencing unplanned pregnancies and
illegally registering the birth of the latter’s child to the former’s register.
Some private adoption agencies legally facilitate adoptions of newborns who are
never listed in the birth mother’s register, but this means that the full costs
of the mother’s medical care throughout pregnancy and birth must be paid up
front. Although Japan has national health insurance, the costs of healthy
pregnancy and a normal vaginal birth are not covered and have to be paid at the
time of treatment. After a birth is registered in the family register the
government pays a “baby bonus” to the mother that reimburses these costs. In a
“normal” situation this means that the pregnancy and birth are in practice
free, but if the birth is not registered the bonus isn’t paid, laying a large
financial burden on the biological mother. Most agencies require the adoptive
parents to pay this amount in addition to other fees and charges, meaning that
even above-board, not-for-profit agencies charge very high fees.
Societal Acceptance of Eugenics
I wrote in a post about an orphanage Christmas party I organised that a co-worker commented that the kids would “just end up in jail
anyway” because they had “bad blood”. Her view is definitely not a fringe or
minority one. Ideas of pure and impure blood and of personalities based on
blood types are commonplace and largely unquestioned. There is a pervasive
belief that everything from your taste in food to the language you speak is
biologically pre-determined. Even teachers will unabashedly say things like “Japanese
ears have a different internal structure that can’t distinguish between R and
L” or “Japanese language uses a different part of the brain from other
languages”. These casual assumptions may not seem serious enough to warrant my
use of the term eugenics, so let me also point out that laws providing for
compulsory sterilisation of women with disabilities were not abolished until
mid-1996.
During the orientation meeting for a private adoption agency
we attended last summer the main focus was on the organisation’s policy of not
allowing applicants to refuse a child. They explained that this included the
following commonly objectionable reasons: Biological parents with a criminal
record or mental illness, a child born of rape, the child’s race or the presence
of a disability. Apparently many applicants baulk at the idea of a child with
parents who have a criminal record… we couldn’t even understand why that was
included. What possible difference could it make?! To Japanese couples,
apparently it makes a big difference. During the Q and A section one couple who
had adopted their daughter through the agency told us that race had been their
biggest stumbling block. “A disability we could cope with” they told us, “but
what if the child were black?! I
mean, we don’t mind, but think about the bullying…” According to materials we
were given, after this orientation more than half of applicants decide not to
continue every year.
An anecdote in “Adoption in Japan” by
Peter Hayes and
Toshie Habu illustrates what
prospective parents want in an adopted child. The authors write about the overwhelming response an adoption agency received to their search for parents for a three-year-old girl whose parents had died in a car accident. She represented the ideal "orphan" to prospective parents: the cute and developmentally standard child of a normal family affected by tragic circumstances.
In some Japanese cases, as in many other countries,
parents fear that that will not bond with or love an adopted child. Last time Abe Shinzo was prime minister
his wife spoke publicly about their infertility but also commented that she felt incapable to raising an adopted child, and consequently they had decided to remain childless.
Fragmentation of Services
Adoption of children who are wards of the state is conducted
via the child welfare office of each regional center. Private orphanages may
pursue adoptions privately, particularly Catholic orphanages in coordination
with the local Catholic congregation. A number of private adoption agencies
exist to match birth parents with couples looking to adopt infants. Some
obstetricians and maternity hospitals run private or ad hoc programs. There
seems to be no national guidance or oversight. This quote
from an article by
Cynthia Ruble highlights the lack of consistency:
A woman whose daughter had died was allowed by child welfare to go to
a local orphanage and pick out a girl who looked like her daughter and
take her home. Mr. Yamanta inherited this case from his predecessor.
When he visited the home to see how the little six-year-old was doing,
the mother said in front of the girl, “My daughter was not stupid like
she is.” When Yamanta told his superior about this, the response was
that the girl needed to learn to endure suffering. Of course, Mr. Yamanta ignored his supervisor and immediately moved
the girl out of the situation. He was later rebuked severely. Impressed by an American missionary and a doctors’ association that
was helping newborns get adopted, Mr. Yamanta wondered why the
government couldn’t do the same thing. This would keep some children
from ever entering the system. So, he started doing something
revolutionary. He started asking pregnant women who came seeking help if
they would be interested in adoption rather than putting their baby in
an orphanage. Mr. Yamanta and his co-workers developed a system of finding and
qualifying parents and arranging adoptions. One of their tenets was and
is that if a baby turns out to be disabled, the adoptive parents must
continue to raise him/her. Instead of sitting in their offices, he and
his staff would go to the hospital when a baby was born. They would take
the new parents there and make sure they were taught how to care for
the newborn. Then, they let the birth mother put her baby in the arms of
loving parents. You would think that this amazing new process would
have caught on like wild fire all over Japan, but instead, Mr. Yamanta
and his staff were opposed at every turn.