Inter-country adoption is a process by which individuals or couples adopt a child from another country which is other than their own. In that way, they offer a new home to the child and provide it with better opportunities. While it serves as a humanitarian approach to providing homes for the orphaned and abandoned children, it also involves several challenges. The challenges range from differences in domestic laws, international treaties, concerns with the ethnicity and practical implementation issues. There are several difficulties and legal complexities surrounding adoption happening across countries.
 
Analysis
Each country has its own adoption laws and its own procedure to effect the same. This may conflict with the laws of the country of the adoptive parents. Some of the nations have made extremely stringent and strict laws and strict eligibility criteria for adoptive parents, while other nations have abolished and imposed a ban on it so as to prevent child trafficking and promote cultural preservation.

These country to country differences and discrepancies make it difficult to establish a uniform legal framework for inter-country adoption. For instance, the Russian Federation imposed a ban on inter-country adoptions by the citizens of the United States of America in 2013 due to situations where the Russian adopted children were getting abused and neglected by the adoptive American families. Similarly, Guatemala suspended inter-country adoptions in 2007 after reports of coercion and child trafficking. Such conflicts demonstrate the challenges adoptive parents face when they attempt to navigate different national laws.

'The Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Inter-Country Adoption (1993)'[1] is the primary transnational treaty which governs inter-country adoption. The convention aims to prevent child trafficking and ensures adoptions are conducted in the child's benefit and well-being. However, not all countries are signatories to the Convention which leads to disparities in adoption procedures and protections for children. Although the Hon'ble High Court exists, many countries have not signed it, leading to numerous transnational adoptions occurring outside the Convention's framework. In nations that are not part of the agreement, adoption procedures tend to be more lenient.

Due to this, non-signatory countries attract more individuals seeking inter-country adoption. For example, inter-country adoptions (ICAs) with approximately 4,500 adoptions to the U.S. in 2009-10. The non- signatory countries such as Ethiopia had banned inter-country adoption in 2018 but often experiences difficulties in ensuring transparency and preventing illicit adoption practices. The signatory member nations are required to implement and enforce the principles of the conventions effectively, which is not always the case due to weak regulatory frameworks.

The Baby Yamada case was about a custody contest between foreign parents and Japanese parents, which became an issue concerning international child abduction. It led to Japan's resistance in imposing The Hague Convention, which had created controversies involving parental rights, legal loopholes, and welfare of children during cross-border cases. The case emphasized difficulties concerning international enforcement of custody.
 
Risk of child trafficking is one of the biggest concerns in inter-country adoption. Fraudulent agencies and intermediaries may exploit children by forging and counterfeiting documents, inducing and forcing biological parents into giving up their children or even engaging in outright abduction. Many countries have strengthened their laws on adoption to combat illegal practices, but the execution of the law remains inconsistent. Cambodian adoption scandals in the early 2000s highlights how fraudulent networks fabricated documents to present children as orphans eligible for adoption. In 2010, Nepal suspended inter-country adoptions due to similar concerns regarding fabrication of documents.

The adoptive parents often face prolonged and lengthy legal procedures due to extensive paperwork, household background checks and court approvals. The complex and bureaucratic nature of the process is very expensive in terms of time, money which leads to delays, causing emotional distress to both adoptive parents and children. Moreover, political turmoil or abrupt shifts in a nation's adoption regulations can disrupt adoption processes which results in children being stuck in legal uncertainty. For instance, the Democratic Republic of Congo halted exit permits for adopted children in 2013, which left many families stranded for years despite having completed legal adoption processes. These delays not only cause distress but also increase the risk of children aging out of the adoption system.

In international adoption, ensuring proper post-adoption supervision is highly challenging, making the child vulnerable to neglect by their adoptive parents. In transnational adoptions, adoptive parents must first take the child to another country as guardians before completing the adoption process there. But such complications can arise seriously if the guardian fails to become the child's intended adoptive parent.

Some countries have reservations about the loss of cultural heritage when a foreign couple adopts a child from their country. South Korea and Ethiopia have made stringent laws to make sure that children are not cut off from their native culture. In certain cases, nations prohibit or restrict inter-country adoptions to avoid the loss of cultural identity. A 2017 UNICEF report[2] noted that internationally adopted children tend to face identity crises since they are brought up in countries where they do not connect with their country of origin. This has resulted in some nations, like China, mandating that adoptive parents go through cultural orientation before the adoption process is completed.

Most jurisdictions do not have effective post-adoption monitoring systems in place to guarantee the welfare of adopted children. When adopted children are subjected to abuse, neglect, or failure to integrate into a new culture, there is often a lack of effective legal redress or assistance. The lack of standardized follow-up procedures is a key omission in inter-country adoption systems. For instance, in the United States, certain high-profile rehoming cases in which adopted children are unofficially passed on to new caretakers without judicial monitoring have brought issues of poor post-adoption monitoring into question. Sweden has implemented stricter follow-up requirements to monitor children's welfare after adoption.

Ethical issues are raised where the biological parents of the child put to adoption are not well-informed about the consequences of it, the separation of children from their families where other forms of care are an option, or the destruction of families. Human rights groups contend that local solutions like kinship care and foster care must be explored before embracing inter-country adoption. The "Save the Children" group supports domestic adoption rather than international adoption, pointing to instances where biological families were deceived or coerced into relinquishing their children.

Maintaining ethical adoption procedures is an ongoing concern globally.
In the matter of Craig Allen Coates v. State[3], heard on behalf of the Indian Council for Child Welfare and Welfare Home for Children, the court held that if adoptive parents do not give valid reasons and explanations for adopting a child from a foreign country, the adoption will not be allowed.

One of the challenges in international adoption is identifying eligible adoptive parents. In 'Karnataka State Council for Child Welfare v. Society of Sisters of Charity St. Gerosa Convent'[4], the Hon'ble Apex Court emphasized that priority should be given to Indian adoptive parents. This ensures that the child is raised in an Indian cultural environment and preserves their heritage and traditions.

Challenges in India
India, being one of the major source countries for inter-country adoption, has distinct legal and procedural issues. India is a signatory to The Hague Convention and has a strict adoption regime under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015[5], and the CARA regulations[6]. Notwithstanding these provisions, some challenges remain:

• Bureaucratic and Time-Consuming Process: The Indian adoption process is extremely bureaucratic, with lengthy waiting periods because of legal formalities, background checks, and court approvals, resulting in delays that deter potential adoptive parents.
• Unawareness and Lack of Transparency: Potential adoptive parents, both domestic and foreign, are made aware of the system being opaque because of intricate rules and a lack of transparent information.
• Illegal Adoption and Child Trafficking Concerns: Instances of child trafficking and illegal adoption have been witnessed, and as a result, it has been brought under more scrutiny, making the process even stricter.
• Domestic Adoption Preference: Indian legislation prefers domestic adoption over international adoption, which at times restricts children for foreign adoptions, and hence, less adoption by foreign parents.
• Post-Adoption Problems: Ensuring the well-being of children after adoption is problematic, with limited follow-up arrangements available for foreign-adoption children.

Conclusion
Inter-country adoption is an important avenue for the provision of care and stability to children in need. Legal issues like conflicting national legislations, threats of child trafficking, cultural issues, and lack of post-adoption monitoring remain major challenges. Strengthening global cooperation, imposing stringent legal protections, and encouraging ethical adoption practices are critical to ensuring inter-country adoption serves the best interests of the child while maintaining international human rights standards.

In India, although legal frameworks are in place, eliminating inefficiencies, ensuring transparency, and enhancing post-adoption follow-ups will assist in developing a more streamlined and child-focused adoption process. Additionally, promoting better diplomatic ties among nations with mutual adoption interests has the potential to build a more ethical and efficient global adoption system.

End-Notes:

1. The Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Inter-Country Adoption (1993)
   URL: www.hcch.net/en/instruments/conventions/full-text/?cid=69
2. Annual Results Report 2017 Child Protection, (2017)
   URL: www.unicef.org/media/47761/file/Child_Protection_2017_Annual_Results_Report.pdf
3. Case: Craig Allen Coates v. State, AIRONLINE 2010 SC 139
4. Case: Karnataka State Council for Child Welfare v. Society of Sisters of Charity St. Gerosa Convent, AIR 1994 SUPREME COURT 658
5. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, No. 2, Acts of Parliament, 2015 (India)
6. Adoption Regulations, (2022)
   URL: cara.wcd.gov.in/PDF/adoptionregulations2022english_27.pdf