By Yoann Axel Emian, Canadian Immigration Lawyer.
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.
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.
Citizenship and Immigration as Mechanisms of Social Closure
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’s 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.
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.
Canadian law reflects this logic. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act “IRPA” and the Citizenship Act 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.
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’s best interests. Yet in practice, these assessments are heavily influenced by cultural assumptions about what a family should look like.
Legal Norms and Nation-Building
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.
Canada’s 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.
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.
Adoption and the Myth of Neutral Bureaucracy
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.
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.
This normative model of the family, enforced through administrative processes, means that family formation through adoption is never just about the child’s best interests. It is also about aligning with the state’s vision of what constitutes a proper Canadian family.
A Brief History of Adoption and Child Migration in Canada
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’s 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.
Canada’s 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.
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’s welfare, ensure that adoptions occur in the best interests of the child, and prevent child trafficking and coercion.
The Legal Infrastructure of Intercountry Adoption in Canada
Intercountry adoption in Canada is regulated through three levels of governance:
- Provincial and territorial governments oversee adoption licensing, home studies, and final approval of adoption placements.
- The federal government, through Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, processes applications for immigration or citizenship once an adoption is completed or underway.
- Foreign governments must also approve adoptions and issue required documentation, adding a layer of international diplomacy and legal compliance.
This complex jurisdictional framework often creates confusion and delays for adoptive families. Each province operates with its own procedures and requirements, and Canada’s coordination with foreign governments can be inconsistent. This is especially true in cases where countries have restricted or suspended intercountry adoptions due to concerns about child exploitation or incompatibility with Canadian legal standards.
A Decline Not of Interest, But of Access
Contrary to popular assumptions, the sharp drop in intercountry adoptions is not the result of waning demand. Prospective adoptive parents across Canada continue to pursue adoption as a pathway to family-building, particularly those who face barriers to biological parenthood.
What has changed is the supply chain, shaped by both international factors and domestic restrictions. Some sending countries, including China and Ethiopia, have curtailed or tightly controlled intercountry adoptions due to ethical concerns, changing demographics, or political shifts. On the Canadian side, adoption agencies have been closing because of regulatory pressures, slow processing times, and increasing legal uncertainty.
From Reunification to Restriction
Canadian authorities increasingly frame intercountry adoption as an exceptional process that must be tightly regulated to prevent abuse. While protection from trafficking is a legitimate concern, this risk-averse posture often leads to over-correction. Legal compliance is prioritized over child welfare or family reunification.
This shift is evident in the federal government’s discretionary decisions to suspend or limit adoptions from countries such as Pakistan and Japan. In some cases, these decisions are tied to a lack of legal compatibility, such as when a sending country does not formally sever the child’s relationship with their biological parents in a way that aligns with Canadian legal standards. In other instances, the rationale is less transparent, leaving adoptive families in limbo despite having complied with all legal and ethical requirements.
The Best Interests of the Child and the Reality of Gatekeeping
The best interests of the child is the guiding principle of Canadian family law and a foundational concept in the Hague Adoption Convention. It is intended to ensure that every legal decision involving a child prioritizes their well-being, safety, and long-term development. In the context of intercountry adoption, this principle should serve as the core justification for legal recognition, support, and expedited processing. However, Canadian adoption and immigration authorities often apply the best interest’s principle in narrow, formalistic, and sometimes contradictory ways revealing that the state’s true priorities may lie in regulatory risk management and social control, rather than in child welfare.
The Gatekeeping Role of IRCC and Provinces
While provincial authorities handle home studies and the matching process, it is IRCC that ultimately decides whether to grant permanent residence or citizenship to the adopted child. Even when all provincial approvals are secured including confirmation that the adoption is in the child’s best interests, IRCC officers retain the discretion to reject an application based on criteria such as: whether the adoption was primarily intended to facilitate immigration, whether the adoptive relationship is genuine and continuing and whether the child’s ties to their biological family have been properly severe.
Although these criteria appear neutral, they can override social work assessments and judicial findings. In some cases, children have been denied entry to Canada even after provincial officials certified that the adoption was lawful and, in the child’s, best interests. The result is a fragmented system in which federal immigration standards take precedence over family law decisions, despite official claims that all authorities are working toward the same child-focused goals.
Provinces also impose their own barriers. Some maintain strict eligibility criteria for prospective adoptive parents, including rules about marital status, age gaps between parent and child, and minimum income levels.
Case Studies in Contradiction
Consider the case of an Ontario couple who adopted a child from Ghana through a process that complied with local law and received provincial approval. Despite the child living with the family for over a year and forming strong emotional bonds, IRCC refused to issue a visa on the grounds that the adoption did not fully sever legal ties with the birth family. This requirement exists under Canadian law, but it is not universally practiced in all adoption cultures. The child was eventually removed from Canada, despite the clear emotional harm caused by the separation.
In another case, a single queer woman who adopted a child from South Asia through a legally recognized guardianship was denied permanent residence for the child. IRCC argued that the guardianship was not equivalent to adoption under Canadian law. Although the woman had raised the child since infancy and fulfilled all caregiving responsibilities, the relationship was deemed to lack legal permanence. As a result, the child was ordered to remain abroad.
In both cases, formal legal requirements were allowed to outweigh the actual lived reality of care, stability, and attachment the very elements that the best interest’s principle is supposed to prioritize.
Whose Interests Are Really Being Served?
These examples raise an uncomfortable question: is the best interests principle serving children, or is it serving the state? When IRCC denies or delays adoption visas based on rigid procedural criteria, even in the face of clear family bonds and long-term caregiving, it suggests that the child’s welfare is subordinate to other concerns. These may include maintaining consistency in the immigration system, preventing perceived abuse, or avoiding diplomatic conflict.
This approach not only undermines Canada’s legal obligations under international law, but also reflects a quiet redefinition of whose interests are prioritized. In the name of child protection, the state reinforces exclusionary standards that disproportionately affect already marginalized families. The language of best interests, in this context, becomes a tool of gatekeeping rather than a genuine commitment to care and inclusion.
Reunification or Regulation?
Canadian law publicly endorses family reunification as a central goal of immigration and citizenship policy. This commitment is articulated in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and supported by Canada’s ratification of international treaties such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Hague Adoption Convention. However, in the context of intercountry adoption, the ideal of reunification is often eclipsed by regulatory scrutiny, formal legal barriers, and the discretionary power to deny applications.
Dual Legal Pathways
Canadian law provides two main legal pathways for bringing an adopted child into the country:
- Citizenship Route: Available to Canadian citizens adopting abroad, this pathway allows the child to acquire citizenship upon approval of the adoption and a successful review by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.
- Immigration Route (Permanent Residency): Used by permanent residents or by citizens not eligible under the direct citizenship path, this process requires an application for permanent residence for the adopted child. It involves multiple conditions and several stages of review.
In both pathways, the federal government has broad discretion to approve or deny applications based on whether the adoption satisfies specific criteria:
- was the adoption in the best interests of the child?
- was the relationship primarily intended to facilitate immigration?
- Is the adoption genuine, permanent, and legally recognized by both Canadian and foreign authorities?
- Has the child’s previous legal relationship with their biological parents been fully severed?
Each of these criteria introduces potential challenges. The requirement of severance, in particular, is problematic. Many countries especially in the Global South recognize alternative caregiving models, such as guardianship, customary kinship care, or dual parentage. These models often fulfill the same social and emotional roles as full legal adoption, but Canadian authorities may decline to recognize them as valid.
IRCC and the Primary Purpose Test
IRCC officers are empowered to assess whether an adoption is genuine or primarily intended to facilitate immigration. This primary purpose test is not explicitly defined in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act or the Citizenship Act, which leaves significant room for interpretation. Officers may consider the timing of the adoption, the nature of the relationship between the child and adoptive parent, and whether the child’s living arrangements suggest any alternative motivations.
Although this test is designed to prevent child trafficking, it has often been used to deny valid and loving relationships. This is especially true in cases where the adoptive parent is biologically related to the child, or where the adoption occurred later in the child’s life. The underlying assumption appears to be that legitimate families are formed early, through formal legal channels, and within conventional timelines. Any deviation from this model, even when it reflects culturally normal practices, is often treated with suspicion.
Procedural Hurdles and Legal Inconsistencies
Another ongoing challenge is the disconnect between provincial and federal standards. A child may be legally adopted in a Canadian province under its domestic adoption legislation, yet IRCC can still refuse to recognize the relationship for the purposes of immigration or citizenship. This is especially common when the legal system in the child’s country of origin does not mirror Canadian standards of full adoption, including the complete severance of parental ties.
These cases illustrate how procedural technicalities can override substantive considerations of child welfare. Even when a child is thriving in the care of a stable, loving family, misalignment between legal frameworks can lead to separation, delay, or outright denial often with lasting emotional consequences.
Beyond Symbolism, Toward Structural Reform
Canada presents itself as a global leader in advancing children’s rights, fostering multicultural inclusion, and promoting family reunification. Its public commitments to the best interests of the child, to international cooperation, and to the recognition of diverse family forms suggest a legal system that is progressive, inclusive, and responsive to global realities.
Yet when intercountry adoption is examined more closely, a different picture emerges. Symbolic commitments are frequently undermined by legal technicalities, discretionary decision-making, and entrenched assumptions about what a family should look like. Instead of centring the child’s welfare, Canada’s adoption and immigration regimes often act as mechanisms of exclusion, sorting families into categories of recognition and denial based on how closely they align with traditional norms.
True reform will require more than policy statements. It demands structural change: harmonized legal standards, culturally competent assessments, and a renewed commitment to seeing families however they are formed as worthy of dignity, protection, and legal recognition. Only then can Canada move beyond symbolic inclusion and build a system that truly serves the best interests of all children.
The overlapping frameworks of immigration, citizenship, and adoption law do not simply regulate family formation; they actively construct and constrain it. These systems define who can parent, which children can be adopted, and under what conditions families are legally recognized.
Despite Canada’s obligations under international law, including the Hague Adoption Convention and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, intercountry adoption remains exceptionally difficult. This is especially true for families who are racialized, low-income, or organized outside the Western nuclear model. The supposed neutrality of legal standards such as genuine relationship, primary purpose, or legal severance conceals their role as tools of gatekeeping, reinforcing a narrow vision of Canadian family life.
These barriers are not incidental. They reflect deeper ideologies related to citizenship, race, sexuality, and kinship, and reveal underlying assumptions about who is considered fit to raise Canada’s future citizens. The discretionary power of the state exercised through IRCC officers, provincial regulators, and courts routinely privileges families that align with dominant cultural expectations, while marginalizing those that fall outside them.
If Canada is to move beyond symbolic gestures and adopt a truly inclusive model of family law, several reforms are urgently needed:
- Reconsider the severance requirement in immigration and citizenship assessments, particularly where foreign legal systems or customary practices provide stable, culturally grounded caregiving relationships.
- Improve coordination between federal and provincial bodies to prevent contradictory decisions and reduce burdens on adoptive families.
- Develop clear, transparent guidelines for IRCC officers that integrate culturally competent and child-centred approaches to family evaluation.
- Acknowledge the lived realities of racialized, and transnational families, and embed intersectional training at all levels of decision-making.
Most importantly, reform must be rooted in a broader reimagining of what family, belonging, and care truly mean. Rather than enforcing narrow legal definitions of kinship, Canadian law must adapt to reflect the diverse ways in which love, responsibility, and interdependence are practiced across cultures and borders.
When supported and ethically regulated, adoption remains a powerful avenue for ensuring children’s well-being and securing family bonds. However, that potential will remain unrealized unless Canada brings its legal and bureaucratic systems into alignment with its professed values. Only then can intercountry adoption fulfill its highest purpose not as a selective privilege, but as a human right grounded in inclusion, care, and justice.
