{"id":12354,"date":"2025-05-08T12:00:29","date_gmt":"2025-05-08T16:00:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/cila.co\/?p=12354"},"modified":"2025-05-09T06:42:52","modified_gmt":"2025-05-09T10:42:52","slug":"rethinking-canadas-intercountry-adoption-regime","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cila.co\/fr\/rethinking-canadas-intercountry-adoption-regime\/","title":{"rendered":"Rethinking Canada\u2019s Intercountry Adoption Regime"},"content":{"rendered":"

By Yoann Axel Emian, Canadian Immigration Lawyer.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

At a time when Canada faces declining birth rates, shifting family structures, and growing cultural diversity, it might seem intuitive that policymakers would embrace every possible pathway for family formation, including intercountry adoption. Yet despite rising interest in alternative routes to parenthood, intercountry adoption in Canada is in decline.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

This decline is not due to waning interest. Families across Canada, particularly those unable to conceive biologically and individuals with ties to countries of origin, continue to express a strong desire to adopt from abroad. The barriers instead lie in a complex web of domestic and international law, shaped by shifting policies, tightening regulatory controls, and evolving geopolitical relationships.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Citizenship and Immigration as Mechanisms of Social Closure<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In Canada, family is not just a social or emotional concept. It is a legal category, shaped and bounded by the immigration system, administrative regulations, and the state\u2019s overarching project of nation-building. Canadian intercountry adoption law operates within this structure, relying on citizenship and immigration status as tools of inclusion and exclusion, and framing certain families as more legitimate than others. Understanding how this framework functions requires turning to the concept of citizenship as social closure.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Social closure is the process by which groups maintain privileges by restricting access to resources or status. In the context of modern states, citizenship operates as both a mechanism and an object of closure. It defines who can enter the geographic territory, who can remain, and who can participate in the social and political life of the nation. Those with citizenship are in, while others, including foreign nationals and even permanent residents, remain conditionally included or wholly excluded.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Canadian law reflects this logic. The <\/span>Immigration and Refugee Protection Act <\/span><\/i>\u201c<\/span>IRPA<\/span><\/i>\u201d and the <\/span>Citizenship Act<\/span><\/i> work in tandem to regulate who may enter, reside, and naturalize in Canada. These laws do not just govern individuals; they govern families. The family sponsorship regime, for example, presumes certain relationships as valid and desirable, while limiting or denying recognition to others.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Intercountry adoption exists at the intersection of these regimes. It is both a child welfare issue and an immigration process. For an international adoption to succeed, Canadian authorities must recognize the adoptive relationship as legally valid and consistent with domestic norms. This includes determining whether the relationship meets the test of being genuine, permanent, and serving the child\u2019s best interests. Yet in practice, these assessments are heavily influenced by cultural assumptions about what a family should look like.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Legal Norms and Nation-Building<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Adoption law in Canada was built on an idealized vision of the family: heteronormative, biologically bonded, nuclear, and economically stable. While legislation and policy have evolved to reflect broader recognition of diverse family forms, including same-sex parents and single-parent households, the gatekeeping function of the state persists.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Canada\u2019s immigration and adoption frameworks implicitly favor families that mirror the dominant cultural narrative of the Canadian citizen. Prospective adoptive parents who fit this mold often face smoother pathways. In contrast, families that diverge from this template must frequently defend the legitimacy of their relationships.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

This filtering process is not simply bureaucratic; it is ideological. Canada’s immigration system is not just about moving people across borders. It is about selecting the future citizens who will make up the national community. Adoption policy operates in a similar way, determining which parent-child relationships will be recognized as worthy of legal protection and which will not. In this way, adoption becomes another site of national reproduction, not only biologically, but politically.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Adoption and the Myth of Neutral Bureaucracy<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Although decisions around intercountry adoption are framed as technical or procedural focused on paperwork, background checks, and compliance with international conventions, they are far from neutral.\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

For example, the assessment of whether an adoptive relationship is genuine often requires applicants to demonstrate compliance with a model of parenting that is culturally and socioeconomically specific. Parenting practices grounded in non-Western traditions may be viewed with suspicion. Likewise, prospective parents from lower-income backgrounds or those living in multi-generational or communal households may be disadvantaged by standards that assume a nuclear family living in a single dwelling as the norm.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

This normative model of the family, enforced through administrative processes, means that family formation through adoption is never just about the child\u2019s best interests. It is also about aligning with the state\u2019s vision of what constitutes a proper Canadian family.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

A Brief History of Adoption and Child Migration in Canada<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

To understand how intercountry adoption functions in Canada today, it is helpful to revisit its origins. Canadian adoption law has historically evolved alongside the country\u2019s nation-building efforts. Early adoption policy focused on assimilating children into families that reflected settler norms. This was especially true in the case of Indigenous children, many of whom were forcibly removed from their communities during the Sixties Scoop and placed with adoptive families.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Canada\u2019s international adoption practices also have roots in child migration programs. Throughout the 20th century, Canada accepted thousands of unaccompanied minors from the United Kingdom and other countries through schemes that were often driven more by population engineering than by concern for child welfare. These programs were frequently racially selective, a pattern that continues to influence intercountry adoption policy today.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The modern intercountry adoption system began to take shape in the 1980s and 1990s, particularly with the adoption of the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption. Canada ratified the Convention in 1996, committing to safeguard children\u2019s welfare, ensure that adoptions occur in the best interests of the child, and prevent child trafficking and coercion.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The Legal Infrastructure of Intercountry Adoption in Canada<\/span><\/b>\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Intercountry adoption in Canada is regulated through three levels of governance:<\/span>\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n