So much to do

A ruling by the Constitutional Court, a few weeks ago, declared Law 184/1983, which regulates international adoptions, unconstitutional insofar as it does not include single individuals among those eligible to adopt a foreign minor residing abroad. This is a clear example of how difficult it is, in today's communications landscape, to comprehensively and comprehensively address a topic that is both legislative in nature and has a significant social impact; if not in terms of numbers (which are, after all, limited), then certainly in terms of the experience and background that an international adoption always brings. The head-on contrast between "single" people on the one hand and married couples on the other is an overly simple but inevitably partial interpretation, failing to grasp the full scope of the phenomenon and the challenges it presents.

The Court, in very brief terms, argues that the preference for joint parenting (therefore for the couple) does not actually stem directly from the need to protect the child; which means that the child's harmonious growth, and ultimately his or her best interests, can also be achieved through other means, including adoption by a single parent. Therefore, the exclusion of individuals, in the abstract, is not legitimate. It remains, however, always up to the judge to concretely ascertain the emotional suitability of the specific prospective parent and his or her actual ability to raise, educate, and support a minor.

This is a decision that crystallizes, in reality, what could and did already happen, albeit only "in particular cases." Now, it is the norm. But the issue itself is immensely broader. First of all, international adoption must always be considered according to individual country laws, which do not always approve adoptions by single parents. There's the issue of declining adoption numbers, which are not so much due to a presumed reduction in commitment from married couples (there are over 2,000 ongoing adoption procedures) but rather to a combination of factors, including, first and foremost, the suspension of adoption procedures by many foreign countries, which are increasingly reluctant to send their children up for adoption, thus depriving themselves of them forever.

There's the issue of the enormous financial costs required to achieve an international adoption (national adoption is free), the complex and tortuous process of obtaining eligibility, the substantial neglect of the issue in institutional policy (although it is also a matter of foreign policy and international relations), the issue of the most vulnerable children for whom it is more difficult or impossible to find a family, and above all, the enormous void in support and assistance post-adoption, a crucial phase in which the new family needs concrete and ongoing help. There are a myriad of issues. Unfortunately, even after the ruling, they all remain.


Stefano Caredda
NP April 2025