Editing Adoption (section)

==History==

===Antiquity===
====Adoption for the well-born====
[[File:Traianus Glyptothek Munich 336.jpg|thumb|right|upright|[[Trajan]] became emperor of Rome through adoption by the previous emperor [[Nerva]], and was in turn succeeded by his own adopted son [[Hadrian]]. Adoption was a customary practice of the Roman Empire that enabled peaceful transitions of power.]]
While the modern form of adoption emerged in the United States, forms of the practice appeared throughout history. The [[Code of Hammurabi]], for example, details the rights of adopters and the responsibilities of adopted individuals at length. The practice of [[adoption in ancient Rome]] is well-documented in the [[Codex Justinianus]].<ref>''[http://avalon.law.yale.edu/ancient/hamframe.asp Code of Hammurabi]''</ref><ref>''[http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/535institutes.html Codex Justinianus] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140814182413/http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/535institutes.html |date=14 August 2014 }}''</ref>

Markedly different from the modern period, ancient adoption practices put emphasis on the political and economic interests of the adopter,<ref name="The Psychology of Adoption">Brodzinsky and Schecter (editors), ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=7WQp2uEnogoC The Psychology of Adoption]'', 1990, page 274</ref> providing a legal tool that strengthened political ties between wealthy families and created male heirs to manage estates.<ref>H. David Kirk, Adoptive Kinship: A Modern Institution in Need of Reform, 1985, page xiv.</ref><ref name="Mary Kathleen Benet 1976, page 14">{{cite book|first=Mary Kathleen|last= Benet|title= The Politics of Adoption|date= 1976| page= 14|isbn = 9780029025000|publisher = Free Press}}</ref> The use of adoption by the aristocracy is well-documented: many of Rome's emperors were adopted sons.<ref name="Mary Kathleen Benet 1976, page 14"/> [[Adrogation]] was a kind of Roman adoption in which the person adopted consented to be adopted by another. Some adoptions were even posthumous.

Infant adoption during Antiquity appears rare.<ref name="The Psychology of Adoption"/><ref>John Boswell, ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=MR1D29F0yyQC The Kindness of Strangers]'', 1998, page 74, 115</ref> [[child abandonment|Abandoned children]] were often picked up for slavery<ref>John Boswell, ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=MR1D29F0yyQC The Kindness of Strangers]'', 1998, page 62-63</ref> and composed a significant percentage of the Empire's slave supply.<ref>{{cite book|first=W.|last= Scheidel|chapter= The Roman Slave Supply|editor1-first = Keith|editor1-last= Bradley| editor2-first= Paul|editor2-last= Cartledge|title=The Cambridge World History of Slavery|date= 28 September 2011|pages= 287–310|doi=10.1017/CHOL9780521840668.016|publisher = Cambridge University Press |isbn= 978-0-511-78034-9}}</ref><ref>John Boswell, ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=MR1D29F0yyQC The Kindness of Strangers]'', 1998, page 3</ref> Roman legal records indicate that foundlings were occasionally taken in by families and raised as a son or daughter. Although not normally adopted under Roman Law, the children, called ''[[alumni]]'', were reared in an arrangement similar to guardianship, being considered the property of the father who abandoned them.<ref>John Boswell, ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=MR1D29F0yyQC The Kindness of Strangers]'', 1998, page 53-95</ref>

Other ancient civilizations, notably [[History of India|India]] and [[History of China|China]], used some form of adoption as well. Evidence suggests the goal of this practice was to ensure the continuity of cultural and religious practices; in contrast to the Western idea of extending family lines. In ancient India, adoption was conducted in a limited and highly ritualistic form, so that an adopter might have the necessary [[funerary rites]] performed by a son.<ref>Vinita Bhargava, ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=9z0GsuuhLDUC Adoption in India: Policies and Experiences]'', 2005, page 45</ref> China had a similar idea of adoption with males adopted solely to perform the duties of [[Ancestor worship in China|ancestor worship]].<ref>W. Menski, ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=s7ohU5v8Lu8C Comparative Law in a Global Context: The Legal Systems of Asia and Africa]'', 2000</ref>

The practice of adopting the children of family members and close friends was common among the [[Polynesian culture|cultures of Polynesia]] including [[Ancient Hawaii|Hawaii]] where the custom was referred to as ''[[hānai]]''.

===Middle ages to modern period===
====Adoption and commoners====

[[File:Ferdinand Georg Waldmüller 003.jpg|thumb| ''At the monastery gate'' (''Am Klostertor'') by [[Ferdinand Georg Waldmüller]]]]
The nobility of the [[Germanic peoples|Germanic]], [[Celts|Celtic]], and [[Slavic peoples|Slavic]] cultures that dominated Europe after the decline of the [[Roman Empire]] denounced the practice of adoption.<ref>S. Finley-Croswhite, [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3686/is_199708/ai_n8758613/print?tag=artBody;col1 Review of Blood Ties and Fictive Ties, Canadian Journal of History]{{dead link|date=May 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}, August 1997</ref> In [[medieval]] society, [[bloodline]]s were paramount; a ruling dynasty lacking a "natural-born" [[heir apparent]] was replaced, a stark contrast to Roman traditions. The evolution of European law reflects this aversion to adoption. English [[Common Law|common law]], for instance, did not permit adoption since it contradicted the customary rules of inheritance. In the same vein, France's [[Napoleonic Code]] made adoption difficult, requiring adopters to be over the age of 50, sterile, older than the adopted person by at least 15 years, and to have fostered the adoptee for at least six years.<ref name="books.google.com">Brodzinsky and Schecter (editors), [https://books.google.com/books?id=7WQp2uEnogoC The Psychology of Adoption], 1990, page 274</ref> Some adoptions continued to occur, however, but became informal, based on ad hoc contracts. For example, in the year 737, in a charter from the town of [[Lucca]], three adoptees were made heirs to an estate. Like other contemporary arrangements, the agreement stressed the responsibility of the adopted rather than adopter, focusing on the fact that, under the contract, the adoptive father was meant to be cared for in his old age; an idea that is similar to the conceptions of adoption under Roman law.<ref>John Boswell, ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=MR1D29F0yyQC The Kindness of Strangers]'', 1998, page 224</ref>

Europe's cultural makeover marked a period of significant innovation for adoption. Without support from the nobility, the practice gradually shifted toward abandoned children. Abandonment levels rose with the fall of the empire and many of the foundlings were left on the doorstep of the [[Catholic Church|Church]].<ref name="The Kindness of Strangers">John Boswell, [https://books.google.com/books?id=MR1D29F0yyQC The Kindness of Strangers], 1998, page 184</ref> Initially, the clergy reacted by drafting rules to govern the exposing, selling, and rearing of abandoned children. The Church's innovation, however, was the practice of [[oblation]], whereby children were dedicated to lay life within monastic institutions and reared within a [[monastery]]. This created the first system in European history in which abandoned children did not have legal, social, or moral disadvantages. As a result, many of Europe's abandoned and orphaned children became [[alumni]] of the Church, which in turn took the role of adopter. Oblation marks the beginning of a shift toward [[institutionalization]], eventually bringing about the establishment of the [[foundling hospital]] and [[orphanage]].<ref name="The Kindness of Strangers"/>

As the idea of institutional care gained acceptance, formal rules appeared about how to place children into families: boys could become apprenticed to an [[artisan]] and girls might be married off under the institution's authority.<ref>John Boswell, ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=MR1D29F0yyQC The Kindness of Strangers]'', 1998, page 420</ref> Institutions informally adopted out children as well, a mechanism treated as a way to obtain cheap [[Child labor|labor]], demonstrated by the fact that when the adopted died their bodies were returned by the family to the institution for burial.<ref>John Boswell, ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=MR1D29F0yyQC The Kindness of Strangers]'', 1998, page 421.</ref>

This system of [[apprenticeship]] and informal adoption extended into the 19th century, today seen as a transitional phase for adoption history. Under the direction of social welfare activists, orphan asylums began to promote adoptions based on sentiment rather than work; children were placed out under agreements to provide care for them as family members instead of under contracts for apprenticeship.<ref>Wayne Carp, Editor, Adoption in America, article by: Susan Porter, A Good Home, ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=gVnx_ymDu6wC A Good Home]'', page 29.</ref> The growth of this model is believed to have contributed to the enactment of the first modern adoption law in 1851 by the [[Commonwealth of Massachusetts]], unique in that it codified the ideal of the "best interests of the child".<ref>Wayne Carp, Editor, Adoption in America, article by: Susan Porter, A Good Home, ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=gVnx_ymDu6wC A Good Home]'', page 37.</ref><ref name="Topic: Timeline">Ellen Herman, Adoption History Project, University of Oregon, [http://www.uoregon.edu/~adoption/timeline.html Topic: Timeline] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100415010417/http://www.uoregon.edu/~adoption/timeline.html |date=15 April 2010 }}</ref> Despite its intent, though, in practice, the system operated much the same as earlier incarnations. The experience of the [[Boston Female Asylum]] (BFA) is a good example, which had up to 30% of its charges adopted out by 1888.<ref>Wayne Carp, Editor, Adoption in America, article by: Susan Porter, A Good Home, ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=gVnx_ymDu6wC A Good Home]'', page 44.</ref> Officials of the BFA noted that, although the asylum promoted otherwise, adoptive parents did not distinguish between indenture and adoption: "We believe," the asylum officials said, "that often, when children of a younger age are taken to be adopted, the adoption is only another name for service."<ref>Wayne Carp, Editor, Adoption in America, article by: Susan Porter, A Good Home, ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=gVnx_ymDu6wC A Good Home]'', page 45.</ref>

===Modern period===
====Adopting to create a family====

The next stage of adoption's evolution fell to the emerging nation of the United States. Rapid immigration and the [[American Civil War]] resulted in unprecedented overcrowding of orphanages and foundling homes in the mid-nineteenth century. [[Charles Loring Brace]], a Protestant minister, became appalled by the legions of homeless [[waif]]s roaming the streets of New York City. Brace considered the abandoned youth, particularly Catholics, to be the most dangerous element challenging the city's order.<ref>Ellen Herman, Adoption History Project, University of Oregon, [http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~adoption/archive/BraceDCNY.htm Topic: Charles Loring Brace, The Dangerous Classes of New York and Twenty Years' Work Among Them, 1872]</ref><ref>Charles Loring Brace, [https://archive.org/details/dangerousclasse00bracgoog The Dangerous Classes of New York and Twenty Years' Work Among Them], 1872</ref> 
<!-- Deleted image removed: [[File:CharlesLoringBrace.jpg|thumb|right|upright|[[Charles Loring Brace]]]] -->
His solution was outlined in ''The Best Method of Disposing of Our Pauper and Vagrant Children'' (1859), which started the [[Orphan Train]] movement. The orphan trains eventually shipped an estimated 200,000 children from the urban centers of the East to the nation's rural regions.<ref>Ellen Herman, Adoption History Project, University of Oregon, [http://www.uoregon.edu/~adoption/people/brace.html Topic: Charles Loring Brace] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091019222325/http://www.uoregon.edu/~adoption/people/brace.html |date=19 October 2009 }}</ref> The children were generally [[indentured]], rather than adopted, to families who took them in.<ref>Stephen O'Connor, [https://books.google.com/books?id=FMUlOcn61q4C Orphan Trains], Page 95</ref> As in times past, some children were raised as members of the family while others were used as farm laborers and household servants. The sheer size of the displacement—one of the largest migrations of children in history—and the degree of exploitation that occurred, gave rise to new agencies and a series of laws that promoted adoption arrangements rather than indenture. The hallmark of the period is [[Minnesota]]'s adoption law of 1917, which mandated investigation of all placements and limited record access to those involved in the adoption.<ref>Wayne Carp (Editor), [https://books.google.com/books?id=gVnx_ymDu6wC E. Adoption in America: Historical Perspectives], page 160</ref><ref>Ellen Herman, Adoption History Project, University of Oregon, [http://www.uoregon.edu/~adoption/topics/homestudies.htm Topic: Home Studies] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091019222930/http://www.uoregon.edu/~adoption/topics/homestudies.htm |date=19 October 2009 }}</ref>

During the same period, the [[Progressivism in the United States|Progressive]] movement swept the United States with a critical goal of ending the prevailing orphanage system. The culmination of such efforts came with the First White House Conference on the Care of Dependent Children called by President [[Theodore Roosevelt]] in 1909,<ref>M. Gottlieb, The Foundling, 2001, page 76</ref> where it was declared that the nuclear family represented "the highest and finest product of civilization" and was best able to serve as primary caretaker for the abandoned and orphaned.<ref>E. Wayne Carp (Editor), [https://books.google.com/books?id=gVnx_ymDu6wC Adoption in America: Historical Perspectives], page 108</ref><ref>Ellen Herman, Adoption History Project, University of Oregon, [http://www.uoregon.edu/~adoption/topics/placingout.html Topic: Placing Out] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091019222357/http://www.uoregon.edu/~adoption/topics/placingout.html |date=19 October 2009 }}</ref> As late as 1923, only two percent of children without parental care were in adoptive homes, with the balance in foster arrangements and orphanages. Less than forty years later, nearly one-third were in adoptive homes.<ref>Bernadine Barr, "Spare Children, 1900–1945: Inmates of Orphanages as Subjects of Research in Medicine and in the Social Sciences in America" (PhD diss., Stanford University, 1992), p. 32, figure 2.2.</ref>

Nevertheless, the popularity of [[eugenic]] ideas in America put up obstacles to the growth of adoption.<ref>Ellen Herman, Adoption History Project, University of Oregon, [http://www.uoregon.edu/~adoption/topics/eugenics.htm Topic: Eugenics] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100827010849/http://www.uoregon.edu/~adoption/topics/eugenics.htm |date=27 August 2010 }}</ref><ref>Lawrence and Pat
Starkey, [https://books.google.com/books?id=him8GwThlAUC Child Welfare and Social Action in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries], 2001 page 223</ref> There were grave concerns about the genetic quality of illegitimate and indigent children, perhaps best exemplified by the influential writings of [[Henry H. Goddard]], who protested against adopting children of unknown origin, saying,

{{Blockquote|Now it happens that some people are interested in the welfare and high development of the human race; but leaving aside those exceptional people, all fathers and mothers are interested in the welfare of their own families. The dearest thing to the parental heart is to have the children marry well and rear a noble family. How short-sighted it is then for such a family to take into its midst a child whose pedigree is absolutely unknown; or, where, if it were partially known, the probabilities are strong that it would show poor and diseased stock, and that if a marriage should take place between that individual and any member of the family the offspring would be degenerates.<ref>H.H. Goddard, [http://www.uoregon.edu/~adoption/archive/GoddardWCA.htm Excerpt from Wanted: A Child to Adopt] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100828114240/http://www.uoregon.edu/~adoption/archive/GoddardWCA.htm |date=28 August 2010 }}</ref>}} The period 1945 to 1974, the [[Baby Scoop Era|baby scoop era]], saw rapid growth and acceptance of adoption as a means to build a family.<ref>E. Wayne Carp (Editor), [https://books.google.com/books?id=gVnx_ymDu6wC Adoption in America: Historical Perspectives], page 181</ref> Illegitimate births rose three-fold after World War II, as [[Sexual revolution|sexual mores]] changed. Simultaneously, the scientific community began to stress the dominance of nurture over genetics, chipping away at eugenic stigmas.<ref>{{cite journal |url-status=live |first1=William D. |last1=Mosher |first2=Christine A. |last2=Bachrach |url=http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2800496.html |title=Understanding U.S. Fertility: Continuity and Change in the National Survey of Family Growth, 1988–1995 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081024144513/http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2800496.html |archive-date=24 October 2008 |journal=Family Planning Perspectives |volume =28 |issue=1 |date=January–February 1996 |publisher=Guttmacher Institute |page=5|doi=10.2307/2135956 |jstor=2135956 }}</ref><ref>Barbara Melosh, [https://books.google.com/books?id=mM_meNTALDkC Strangers and Kin: the American Way of Adoption], page 106</ref> In this environment, adoption became the obvious solution for infertile couples.<ref>Barbara Melosh, [https://books.google.com/books?id=mM_meNTALDkC Strangers and Kin: the American Way of Adoption], page 105-107</ref> Many of the mothers,  however,  were forced or coerced into relinquishing their children.

Taken together, these trends resulted in a new American model for adoption. Following its Roman predecessor, Americans severed the rights of the original parents while making adopters the new parents in the eyes of the law. Two innovations were added: 1) adoption was meant to ensure the "best interests of the child", the seeds of this idea can be traced to the first American adoption law in [[Massachusetts]],<ref name="books.google.com"/><ref name="Topic: Timeline"/> and 2) adoption became infused with secrecy, eventually resulting in the sealing of adoption and original birth records by 1945. The origin of the move toward secrecy began with Charles Loring Brace, who introduced it to prevent children from the Orphan Trains from returning to or being reclaimed by their parents. Brace feared the impact of the parents' poverty, in general, and Catholic religion, in particular, on the youth. This tradition of secrecy was carried on by the later Progressive reformers when drafting of American laws.<ref>E. Wayne Carp, Family Matters: Secrecy and Disclosure in the History of Adoption, Harvard University Press, 2000, pages 103–104.</ref>

The number of adoptions in the United States peaked in 1970.<ref>National Council for Adoption, Adoption Fact Book, 2000, page 42, Table 11</ref> It is uncertain what caused the subsequent decline. Likely contributing factors in the 1960s and 1970s include a decline in the fertility rate, associated with the introduction of [[Combined oral contraceptive pill|the pill]], the completion of legalization of [[birth control|artificial birth control]] methods, the introduction of [[Title X|federal funding]] to make [[family planning]] services available to the young and low-income, and the legalization of abortion. In addition, the years of the late 1960s and early 1970s saw a dramatic change in society's view of [[illegitimacy]] and in the legal rights<ref>{{cite web|title=US Supreme Court Cases from Justia & Oyez|url=http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-14/90-illegitimacy.html|access-date=19 July 2011}}</ref> of those born outside of wedlock. In response, [[family preservation]] efforts grew<ref>M. Gottlieb, The Foundling, 2001, page 106</ref> so that few children born out of wedlock today are adopted. Ironically, adoption is far more visible and discussed in society today, yet it is less common.<ref>Ellen Herman, Adoption History Project, University of Oregon, [http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~adoption/topics/adoptionstatistics.htm Topic: Adoption Statistics]</ref>

The American model of adoption eventually proliferated globally. [[England and Wales]] established their first formal adoption law in 1926. The [[Netherlands]] passed its law in 1956. [[Sweden]] made adoptees full members of the family in 1959. [[West Germany]] enacted its first laws in 1977.<ref>Christine Adamec and William Pierce, The Encyclopedia of Adoption, 2nd Edition, 2000</ref> Additionally, the Asian powers opened their orphanage systems to adoption, influenced as they were by Western ideas following colonial rule and military occupation.<ref>Ellen Herman, Adoption History Project, University of Oregon, [http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~adoption/topics/internationaladoption.htm Topic: International Adoption]</ref> In France, local public institutions accredit candidates for adoption, who can then contact orphanages abroad or ask for the support of NGOs. The system does not involve fees, but gives considerable power to social workers whose decisions may restrict adoption to "standard" families (middle-age, medium to high income, heterosexual, Caucasian).<ref>[[Bruno Perreau]], ''[https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/politics-adoption The Politics of Adoption: Gender and the Making of French Citizenship]'', MIT Press, 2014.</ref>

Adoption is today practiced globally. The table below provides a snapshot of Western adoption rates. Adoption in the United States still occurs at rates nearly three times those of its peers even though the number of children awaiting adoption has held steady in recent years, between 100,000 and 125,000 during the period 2009 to 2018.<ref>U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, [http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/resource/trends-in-foster-care-and-adoption U.S. Trends in Foster Care and Adoption]</ref>

{| class="wikitable"
|+ '''Adoptions, live births and adoption/live birth ratios for a number of Western countries'''
|-
! width="10%" | Country
! width="20%" | Adoptions
! width="20%" | Live births
! width="20%" | Adoption/live birth ratio
! width="30%" | Notes
|-
|[[Adoption in Australia|Australia]]
| 270 (2007–2008)<ref>Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, [http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/cws/aa07-08/aa07-08.pdf Adoptions Australia 2003–04] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091010053423/http://aihw.gov.au/publications/cws/aa07-08/aa07-08.pdf |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221009/http://aihw.gov.au/publications/cws/aa07-08/aa07-08.pdf |archive-date=2022-10-09 |url-status=live |date=10 October 2009 }}, Child Welfare Series Number 35.</ref>
| 254,000 (2004)<ref>Australian Bureau of Statistics, [http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/ViewContent?readform&view=ProductsbyTopic&Action=Expand&Num=5.12.2 Population and Household Characteristics]</ref>
| 0.2 per 100 live births
| Includes ''known relative'' adoptions
|-
| England & Wales
| 4,764 (2006)<ref>UK Office for National Statistics, [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=592&Pos=1&ColRank=2&Rank=384 Adoption Data] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090111063708/http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=592&Pos=1&ColRank=2&Rank=384 |date=11 January 2009 }}</ref>
| 669,601(2006)<ref>UK Office for National Statistics, [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=369 Live Birth Data]</ref>
| 0.7 per 100 live births
| Includes all adoption orders in England and Wales
|-
| Iceland
| between 20 and 35 year<ref>Íslensk Ættleiðing, [http://www.isadopt.is/index.php?p=english Adoption Numbers] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110423211651/http://www.isadopt.is/index.php?p=english |date=23 April 2011 }}</ref>
| 4,560 (2007)<ref>Statistics Iceland, [http://www.statice.is/Statistics/Population/Births-and-deaths Births and Deaths]</ref>
| 0.8 per 100 live births
|-
| Ireland
| 263 (2003)<ref>Adoption Authority of Ireland, [http://www.adoptionboard.ie/booklets/adoption_report_nov_25.pdf Report of The Adoption Board 2003] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060311173553/http://www.adoptionboard.ie/booklets/adoption_report_nov_25.pdf |date=11 March 2006 }}</ref>
| 61,517 (2003)<ref>Central Statistics Office Ireland, [http://www.cso.ie/statistics/bthsdthsmarriages.htm Births, Deaths, Marriages] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080510134629/http://www.cso.ie/statistics/bthsdthsmarriages.htm |date=10 May 2008 }}</ref>
| 0.4 per 100 live births
| 92 non-family adoptions; 171 family adoptions (e.g. stepparent). Not included: 459 international adoptions were also recorded.
|-
|[[Adoption in Italy|Italy]]
| 3,158 (2006)<ref>Tom Kington, [https://www.theguardian.com/italy/story/0,,2000691,00.html Families in Rush to Adopt a Foreign Child], Guardian, 28 January 2007</ref>
| 560,010 (2006)<ref>Demo Istat, [http://demo.istat.it/bil2006/index_e.html Demographic Balance] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080616132353/http://demo.istat.it/bil2006/index_e.html |date=16 June 2008 }}, 2006</ref>
| 0.6 per 100 live births
|-
| New Zealand
| 154 (2012/13) <ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.cyf.govt.nz/about-us/who-we-are-what-we-do/adoptions-data-back-up.html |title= Adoptions Data |publisher= Department of Child, Youth and Family |access-date= 1 March 2014 |archive-date= 26 October 2014 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20141026202043/http://www.cyf.govt.nz/about-us/who-we-are-what-we-do/adoptions-data-back-up.html |url-status= dead }}</ref>
| 59,863 (2012/13) <ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.stats.govt.nz/infoshare/ViewTable.aspx?pxID=554337de-4bac-4145-a134-86c12e7f5615 |archive-url= https://archive.today/20140301031919/http://www.stats.govt.nz/infoshare/ViewTable.aspx?pxID=554337de-4bac-4145-a134-86c12e7f5615 |url-status= dead |archive-date= 1 March 2014 |title= Live births (by sex), stillbirths (Maori and total population) (Annual-Jun) – Infoshare |publisher= Statistics New Zealand |access-date= 1 March 2014 }}</ref>
| 0.26 per 100 live births
| Breakdown: 50 non-relative, 50 relative, 17 step-parent, 12 surrogacy, 1 foster parent, 18 international relative, 6 international non-relative
|-
| Norway
| 657 (2006)<ref>Statistics Norway, [http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/02/02/10/adopsjon_en/ Adoptions],</ref>
| 58,545 (2006)<ref>Statistics Norway, [http://www.ssb.no/fodte_en/tab-2008-04-09-01-en.html Births]</ref>
| 1.1 per 100 live births
| Adoptions breakdown: 438 inter-country; 174 stepchildren; 35 foster; 10 other.
|-
| Sweden
| 1044 (2002)<ref>Embassy of Sweden (Seoul), [http://www.swedenabroad.com/Page____19083.aspx Adoptions to Sweden] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081012195953/http://www.swedenabroad.com/Page____19083.aspx |date=12 October 2008 }}, 12 February 2002</ref>
| 91,466 (2002)<ref>Statistics Sweden [http://www.scb.se/default____2154.asp Births] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081031214812/http://www.scb.se/default____2154.asp |date=31 October 2008 }}, 2002</ref>
| 1.1 per 100 live births
| 10–20 of these were national adoptions of infants. The rest were international adoptions.
|-
|[[Adoption in the United States|United States]]
| approx 136,000 (2008)<ref name=":0">The National Adoption Information Clearinghouse of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, [https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/adopted0708.pdf How Many Children Were Adopted in 2007 and 2008?] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190412074948/https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/adopted0708.pdf |date=12 April 2019 }}, September 2011</ref>
| 3,978,500 (2015)<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/births.htm|title=National Vital Statistics System – Birth Data|date=2019-01-09|website=Centers for Disease Control|language=en-us|access-date=2019-01-16}}</ref>
| ≈3 per 100 live births
| The number of adoptions is reported to be constant since 1987. Since 2000, adoption by type has generally been approximately 15% international adoptions, 40% from government agencies responsible for child welfare, and 45% other, such as voluntary adoptions through private adoption agencies or by stepparents and other family members.<ref name=":0" />
|}