Why do the British adopt far fewer children from abroad but more domestic children than the French? To examine this question, this article compares the history of adoption law and practice in France and England and Wales. Although these countries have had similar adoption laws since the 1920s, there have long been many more adoptions in England and Wales. This is partly due to the greater numbers of abused and neglected children being put forward for adoption in the UK. In addition, memories of the forced migration of children, coupled with heated debate over transracial adoption in the 1980s, cast doubt on the idea that intercountry adoption might benefit children. Consequently, local authorities give higher priority to the placement of children born in the UK with its system of open adoption. In contrast, French prospective adopters face a dearth of domestic children available for adoption and so turn their attentions overseas.
BaqueL (2000) Le rôle des services et agences d’adoption en Angleterre. In: FineANeirinckC (eds) Parents de sang, parents adoptifs: Approches juridiques et anthropologiques de l’adoption. France, Europe, USA, Canada, Paris: LGDJ, pp. 103–116.
2.
BelmokhtarB (1996) Les adoptions simples et plénières en 1992. Infostat Justice46: 1–4.
3.
BelmokhtarZ (2009) L’adoption simple et plénière en 2007: des projets différents. Infostat Justice106: 1–6.
4.
Biehal N (2012) Outcomes of adoption: findings from research in England. In: Quatrième Colloque suisse sur l’adoption internationale. Berne: Bundesamt fur Justiz, pp. 42–44.
5.
BrophyJ (2008) Child maltreatment in diverse households: challenges to law, theory and practice. Journal of Law and Society35(1): 75–94.
6.
CarpEW (1998) Family Matters: Secrecy and disclosure in the history of adoption, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Dini M and Meunier M (2014) Rapport d’information fait au nom de la commission des affaires sociales sur la protection de l’enfance, n° 655. Available at: www.senat.fr/rap/r13-655/r13-6551.pdf.
12.
DoumengV (2000) Étude comparative de l’adoption française et de l’adoption ouverte aux États-Unis. In: FineANeirinckC (eds) Parents de sang, parents adoptifs. Approches juridiques et anthropologiques de l’adoption. France, Europe, USA, Canada, Paris: LGDJ, pp. 147–167.
13.
DumaretA-CCoppel-BatschM (1998) Effects in adulthood of separations and long-term foster care: a French research study. Adoption & Fostering22(1): 31–39.
14.
FeastFGrantMRushtonA (2013) Adoption, Adversity and Afterwards: A mid-life follow-up study of women adopted from Hong Kong, London: BAAF.
15.
FisherA (2003) Still ‘Not quite as good as having your own’? Toward a sociology of adoption. Annual Review of Sociology29(1): 335–361.
16.
Flauss-DiemJ (1985) Angleterre. Revue internationale de droit comparé37(3): 539–556.
17.
FurediF (2002) Paranoid Parenting: Why ignoring the experts may be best for your child, Chicago, IL: Chicago Review Press.
18.
GoubauD (2000) ‘Open adoption’ au Canada. In: FineANeirinckC (eds) Parents de sang, parents adoptifs. Approches juridiques et anthropologiques de l’adoption. France, Europe, USA, Canada, Paris: LGDJ, pp. 63–85.
19.
GreenfieldJ (1995) Intercountry adoption: a comparison between France and England. Adoption & Fostering19(2): 31–36.
20.
GuttonJ-P (1993) Histoire de l’adoption en France, Paris: Publisud.
21.
HalifaxJ (2000) L’insertion sociale des enfants adoptés: résultats de l’enquête ‘Adoption internationale et insertion sociale’. Dossiers et recherches de l’Ined98: 1–57.
22.
HalifaxJ (2005) Grandir hors de sa famille biologique: cadre de vie des pupilles de l’État et des enfants adoptés. Recherches familiales2: 47–67.
23.
Halifax J (2007) L’adoption plénière en France: de l’établissement d’une filiation légale à la constitution d’une filiation sociale. Demography thesis. Lille: Atelier national de reproduction des thèses.
24.
Halifax J and Labasque M-V (2013) Étude relative au devenir des enfants adoptés en France et à l’international. Rapport final. Amiens: CREAI de Picardie.
25.
HalifaxJVilleneuve-GokalpC (2005) Adoption in France: who are the adopted children and who are the adopters?Population and Societies417: 1–4.
HollingerJ (2000) L’adoption ouverte aux États-Unis. In: FineANeirinckC (eds) Parents de sang, parents adoptifs. Approches juridiques et anthropologiques de l’adoption. France, Europe, USA, Canada, Paris: LGDJ, pp. 45–61.
28.
HowellS (2009) Adoption of the unrelated child: some challenges to the anthropological study of kinship. Annual Review of Anthropology38: 149–166.
JablonkaI (2005) L’adoption aux États-Unis et en France (XIXe-XXe siècles). Histoire et Sociétés15(3): 56–65.
31.
KeatingJ (2001) Struggle for identity: issues underlying the enactment of the 1926 Adoption of Children Act. University of Sussex Journal of Contemporary History3: 1–9.
32.
KeatingJ (2008) A Child for Keeps: The history of adoption in England, 1918–1945, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
33.
LaroquePDalyA (1956) Les travailleurs sociaux en France et en Angleterre. Enquête sur le personnel social et médico-social familial dans les deux pays, Geneva: WHO.
34.
LavalléeL (2008) Pour une adoption sans rupture du lien de filiation d’origine dans les juridictions de civil law et de common law. Informations Sociales146(2): 132–140.
35.
MassonJNorburyDChattertonS (1983) Mine, Yours, or Ours? A study of step-parent adoption, London: HMSO.
36.
MatherM (2007) Intercountry adoption. Archives of Disease in Childhood92: 479–482.
37.
MelvilleJBeanP (1989) Lost Children of the Empire, London: Unwin Hyman.
38.
MignotJ-F (2015) Simple adoption in France: revival of an old institution (1804–2007). Revue Française de Sociologie56(3): 525–560.
39.
Ministère de la Justice (undated) Compte général de l’administration de la Justice civile et commerciale et de la Justice criminelle, Paris: Ministère de la Justice, 1952–1960.
40.
Ministère de la Justice (undated) Compte général de l’administration de la Justice criminelle et de la Justice civile et commerciale, Paris: Ministère de la Justice, 1961–1976.
41.
Ministère de la Justice (undated) Annuaire statistique de la Justice, Paris: Ministère de la Justice, 1980.
MuratP (2008) Les transformations de la famille.. Quel impact sur les finalités de l’adoption?Informations Sociales146(2): 20–33.
45.
NeirinckN (2000) L’évolution de l’adoption. In: FineANeirinckC (eds) Parents de sang, parents adoptifs. Approches juridiques et anthropologiques de l’adoption. France, Europe, USA, Canada, Paris: LGDJ, pp. 343–361.
46.
O’DonovanK (2003) L’adoption dans le droit du Royaume-Uni. Revue internationale de droit comparé55(4): 845–860.
47.
Observatoire National de l’Enfance en Danger (undated) La situation des pupilles de l’État au 31 décembre, 2007–2013. Available at: http://oned.gouv.fr/mots-cles/pupille-letat.
RohrbasserJ-M (2014) Bouleversements démographiques de la Grande Guerre, Paris: Institut National d’Études Démographiques.
50.
RossiniG (2014) A History of Adoption in England and Wales, 1850–1961, Barnsley: Pen & Sword.
51.
RutterMBeckettCCastleJ (2009) Policy and Practice Implications from the English and Romanian Adoptees (ERA) Study: Forty five key questions, London: BAAF.
52.
SagnesS (2000) La revanche élective. Filiation adoptive et ‘origines’ en France et aux Etats-Unis. In: FineANeirinckC (eds) Parents de sang, parents adoptifs. Approches juridiques et anthropologiques de l’adoption. France, Europe, USA, Canada, Paris: LGDJ, pp. 169–183.
53.
Savard S (ed.) (2010) La théorie de l’attachement. Une approche conceptuelle au service de la protection de l’enfance. Paris: ONED.
54.
SchofieldGBeekM (2006) Attachment Handbook for Foster Care and Adoption, London: BAAF.
SelmanP (1976) Patterns of adoption in England and Wales since 1959. Social Work Today7(7): 194–197.
57.
Selman P (2006) Towards a demography of adoption: making sense of official statistics on child adoption and the search for origins: extract from a paper presented at the Second International Conference on Adoption Research, University of East Anglia, Norwich.
58.
SelmanP (2012) Global trends in intercountry adoption: 2001–2010. Adoption Advocate44: 1–17.
SerreD (2001) La ‘judiciarisation’ en actes. Le signalement d’‘enfant en danger. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales136/137: 70–82.
61.
SerreD (2010) Les assistantes sociales face à leur mandat de surveillance des familles. Des professionnelles divisées. Déviance et Société34(2): 149–162.
TriseliotisJFeastJKyleF (2005) The Adoption Triangle Revisited: A study of adoption, search and reunion experiences, London: BAAF.
64.
United Nations (2009) Child Adoption: Trends and policies, New York: United Nations Publications.
65.
VabreF (2005) Le traitement politique de la maltraitance infantil. Recherches et prévisions2: 5–16.
66.
VerdierP (1988) Limited adoption in France. Adoption & Fostering12(1): 41–44.
67.
WennerE (2000) Nouvelles formes d’adoption ouverte en Allemagne. In: FineANeirinckC (eds) Parents de sang, parents adoptifs. Approches juridiques et anthropologiques de l’adoption. France, Europe, USA, Canada, Paris: LGDJ, pp. 87–101.
68.
WijedasaDSelwynJ (2011) Transition to Adulthood for Adopted Young People: Secondary analyses of data from the Longitudinal Study of Young People in England (LSYPE), Bristol: Hadley Trust.
