Outline

1. Procreation, Family Relations, and the Need to Revive A Child-Centered Societyby Lynn D. WardleBruce C. Hafen Professor of LawJ. Reuben Clark Law SchoolBrigham Young University Provo, UT Paper presented to The American Academy of Fertility Care Professionals - Annual Meeting Salt Lake City, UT July 11, 2012

2. Outline • Introduction • Indicators of the waning of child-centeredness in our society • The Status and Trend of Laws re: marital families • Does It Matter? Why? • Conclusion: We Must Speak Up for the Marital Family for the Sake of our Children Thesis: The most chied-friendly, child-supportive family environment is the marital family (Mom & Dad)

3. I. Introduction: Lest We Take Ourselves Too Seriously

5. N.D. yoga teacher Nadine Schweigert marries herself, exchanging rings with her “inner groom”

6. II. Trends Toward The Disintegration of a Child-Centered Society “It was the best of times it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light it was the season of darkness, it was the spring of hope it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us we had nothing before us . . . .” -Charles Dickens, A Tale of Two Cities (1859).]

7. Percentage of Couples Cohabiting Without Marriage http://familyfacts.org/charts/110/one-in-10-couples-living-together-is-unmarried (seen 11 March 2011), citing U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2010.

8. The Annual Marriage Rate has Fallen Dramatically Number of Marriages per 1000 Women age 15+ http://familyfacts.org/charts/105/the-annual-marriage-rate-has-declined-significantly-in-the-past-generation (seen 11 March 2011), citing Statistical Abstract of the United States, National Vital Statistics Reports, and The Heritage Foundation, 2010.

9. Pew (2011): Marriage Has Dropped In Importance for Young Adults in US Wendy Want & Paul Taylor, For Millennials, Parenthood Trumps Marriage, Pew Research Center, available at http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1920/millennials-value-parenthood-over-marriage (seen 14 March 2011).

10. There is “a growing ‘marriage gap’ between moderately and highly educated America[ns]. Among the affluent, marriage is stable and may even be getting stronger. Among the poor, marriage continues to be fragile and weak. But the most consequential marriage trend of our time concerns the broad center of our society, where marriage, the iconic middle-class institution, is foundering. “The United States is increasingly a separate and unequal nation when it comes to the institution of marriage. Marriage is in danger of becoming a luxury good. Recent lifestyle patterns have “reduced the child centeredness of [the United States]… Similar patterns exist in most western European nations. Wilcox & Marquardt, State of Marriage 2010

11. Source: W. Bradford Wilcox & Elizabeth Marquardt, The State of Our Union; Marriage in America 2010 (2010)at p. 21.

12. Number of divorces per 1,000 married women (age 15+) http://familyfacts.org/charts/120/the-divorce-rate-is-declining-but-still-high

13. U.S. CHILDREN BORN OUT OF WEDLOCK 1940-2008

14. Birth Rate for Unmarried Nearly Rate for Married Women The gap between married and unmarried birth rates has narrowed, The Heritage Foundation, 2011, at http://familyfacts.org/charts/213/the-gap-between-married-and-unmarried-birth-rates-has-narrowed .

15. Fig. 1. Percentage of US Children born out of marriage Source: http://familyfacts.org/charts/205/more-than-four-in-10-children-are-born-to-unwed-mothers (citing U.S. Census Bureau, National Center for Health Statistics, 2010.)

16. American children under eighteen years-old living with a single parent One in four children lives in a single-parent home, The Heritage Foundation, 2011, at http://familyfacts.org/charts/135/one-in-four-children-lives-in-a-single-parent-home .

17. Due to divorce and child-bearing out of wedlock, barely half (only 52%) of 14-year-old girls whose parents are poorly-educated live with both their mother and father, and only 58% of girls of moderately-educated parents; while 81% of such girls whose parents are highly-educated live with both of their parents. --Wilcox & Marquardt

18. REDUCTION OF CHILDBEARING: Due to low fertility rates, a “demographic winter”is descending upon Europe. British historian Niall Ferguson calls this imminent demographic change “the greatest sustained reduction in European population since the Black Death of the 14th Century.” Births are below replacement level (2.1 births per couple) in over 70 nations. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) reports that none of the nations of Europe can maintain their population (necessary for economic sustainability) through births, that only France, (with a birth rate of 1.8) has the possibility to do so. In fifteen European nations the rate of fertility is 1.3 or below, -- (a birthrate of 1.4 or 1.5 means that the population will decrease by one-third each generation). The United Nations Report on World Populating Ageing 1950-2050 notes: “[T]he average total fertility rate in the more developed regions [of the world] has dropped from an already low level of 2.8 children per woman in 1950-1955 to an extremely low level of 1.5 children per woman in 2000-2005. Presently, the total fertility rate is below the replacement level in practically all industrialized countries. In 19 of those countries, the rate is under 1.3 children per woman.”

20. Elective Abortion (On-Demand)

21. Abortions: 1972-2008 (AGI data)*

23. Public Attitudes Source: Lydia Saad, “Americans Still Split Along ‘Pro-Choice,’ ‘Pro-Life’ Lines” Gallup, May 23, 2011 at http://www.gallup.com/poll/147734/Americans-Split-Along-Pro-Choice-Pro-Life-Lines.aspx From William C. Duncan, paper presented at BYU Law School, January 2012.

25. Abortion and Family Structure Source: Lawrence B. Finer & Mia R. Zolna, “Unintended Pregnancy in the United States: Incidence and Disparities, 2006” 84 Contraception 478 (2011) at http://www.contraceptionjournal.org/article/S0010-7824(11)00472-0/abstract (graphic: David Schmidt, Live Action at__) (From William C. Duncan, paper presented at BYU Law School, January 2012.)

27. Legalation of SSM The Legal Status of Same-Sex Unions in the USA and Globally 1 July 2012 A. Legal Allowance of Same-Sex Unions in the USA (50 states + DC): * Same-Sex Marriage Legal: Six (6) USA States (+ DC) (+2 of 564 U.S. Indian tribes) Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York (and the District of Columbia) (+Washington (June 12) & Maryland (2013) if no ballot veto; formerly CA (5 mos). Same-Sex Unions Equivalent to Marriage Recognized in Ten (10) US States: California, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Washington,* Illinois, Hawaii, Delaware, Maryland,* & RI (IL, HI DE & RI in 2011; WA & MD SSM laws passed but may be blocked before effective) Same-Sex Unions Registry & Specific, Limited Benefits in Three (3)US Jurisdictions: Colorado, Maine, and Wisconsin. Compare Status of Same-Sex Relationships Nationwide, Lambda Legal, August 19, 2011, available at http://www.lambdalegal.org/publications/articles/nationwide-status-same-sex-relationships.html (last viewed 20 August 2011). *Compare Status of Same-Sex Relationships Nationwide, Lambda Legal, August 19, 2011, available at http://www.lambdalegal.org/publications/articles/nationwide-status-same-sex-relationships.html (last viewed 20 August 2011).

28. Legal Rejection of Same-Sex Unions in the USA: Same-Sex Marriage Prohibited by State Constitutional Amendment in Thirty-one (31) States (62%): Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina (2012), North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin. (+ Maine “People’s Veto” vote overturned legislation legalizing SSM in ME before the law took effect) (SMA passed in May 2012 in NC (61%) & will be on ballot in in 2012 MN &??; good chance for measures to allow voters to vote on SMAs in WY, IN, & IA; & to repeal SSM in NH) Same-Sex Civil Unions Equivalent to Marriage Recognition Prohibited by State Constitutional Amendment in Twenty (20) States (40%): Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin. Same-Sex Marriage Barredby Constitution, Statute or Appellate Decision in Forty-two (42) States (All but states with same-sex marriage and New Mexico and Rhode Island) In all 32 states in which same-sex marriage has been on the ballot the people (including Maine where in 2009 a “people’s veto” of the legislature’s approval of same-sex marriage was rejected by the “people’s veto”) have decisively rejected same-sex marriage. The total vote rejecting same-sex marriage in votes on the 31 state marriage amendments combined is over 60%.

29. Three Types of State Marriage Amendments Ten SMAs Protect Status of Marriage: AK, AZ, CA, CO, MS, MO, MN, NV, OR, TN E.g., “To be valid or recognized in this State, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman.” Alaska Const., Art. I, sec. 25 (1998) Twenty SMAs Protect Substance of Marriage (Forbid Giving Equivalent Substance to DPs or CUs): AL, AR, FL, GA, ID, KS, KY, LA, MI, NB, NC, ND, OH, OK, SC, SD, TX, UT, VI, WI E.g., “Marriage consists only of the legal union between a man and a woman. No other domestic union, however denominated, may be recognized as a marriage or given the same or substantially equivalent legal effect.”Utah Const., Art. I, sec. 29 (2004) One SMA Protects Government Structure to define marr (Legisl. Can Ban SSM): HI “The Legislature shall have the power to reserve marriage to opposite-sex couples.” Haw. Const., Art. I, sec. 23 (1998) (Overall voter approval rates for state marriage amendment is 60%+)

30. The Legal Status of Same-Sex Unions in the Globally Legal Status – 1 July 2012 A. Legal Allowance of Same-Sex Unions Globally (of 193 Nations / UN): Same-Sex Marriage Permitted in Ten (10)Nations: The Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Portugal, Iceland, and Argentina , and Denmark (SSM allowed in sub-jurisdictions of some other nations (e.g., the USA, Mexico (City); by specific-case court decisions in some nations (BRZ); some nations recognize but do not allow SSM; some allow both SSM and other unions.) Same-Sex Unions Equivalent to Marriage Allowed in Sixteen (16)Other Nations: Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Luxembourg, South Africa, Slovenia, Andorra, Brazil, Switzerland, UK, Uruguay, New Zealand, Austria, Ireland, Liechtenstein (and some sub-jurisdictions in other nations such as Australia, the USA, etc.) Same-Sex Partnerships (Formal but Not Equal to Marriage) Legally Recognized in At Least Six (6) Nations: Australia, Columbia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel.

31. B. Global rejection of SSM At Least Forty-five (45) of 193 Sovereign Nations (24%) Have Constitutional Provisions Explicitly or Implicitly Defining Marriage as Union of Man and Woman Constitutions of Armenia (art. 32), Azerbaijan (art. 34), Belarus (art. 32), Bolivia (art. 63), Brazil (art. 226), Bulgaria (art. 46), Burkina Faso (art. 23), Burundi (art. 29), Cambodia (art. 45), Cameroon (art. 16), China (art. 49), Columbia (art. 42), Cuba (art. 43), Democratic Republic of Congo (art. 40), Ecuador (art. 38), Eritrea (art. 22), Ethiopia (art. 34), Gambia (art. 27), Honduras (art. 112), Hungary (art. M, Constitution/Basic Law of Hungary (25 April 2011) (effective Jan. 2012); Japan (art. 24), Latvia (art. 110 - Dec. 2005), Lithuania (art. 31), Malawi (art. 22), Moldova (art. 48), Mongolia (art. 16), Montenegro (art. 71), Namibia (art. 14), Nicaragua (art. 72), Panama (art. 58), Paraguay (arts. 49, 51, 52), Peru (art. 5), Poland (art. 18), Romania (art. 44), Rwanda (art. 26), Serbia (art. 62), Seychelles (art. 32), Spain (art. 32, disregarded or overturned by legislation),* Sudan (art. 15), Suriname (art. 35), Swaziland Constitution (art. 27), Tajiksistan (art. 33), Turkmenistan (art. 25), Uganda (art. 31), Ukraine (ark. 51), Venezuela (art. 77), Vietnam (art. 64). See also Hong Kong Bill of Rights of 1991 (art. 19); Somalia (art. 2.7, draft Consti.); 12 of these imply (“men and women”). (* = inconsistent with Spanish law allowing same-sex marriage); Examples: Article 110, Constitution of Latvia: “The State shall protect and support marriage—a union between a man and a woman,…”Article 42, Constitution of Columbia: the family “is formed . . . by the free decision of a man and woman to contract matrimony . . . .” Article 24, Constitution of Japan: “Marriage shall be based only on the mutual consent of both sexes and it shall be maintained through mutual cooperation with the equal rights of husband and wife as a basis. . . .”

32. Global (US) Progress of Same-Sex Marriage, and Marriage Equivalent Civil Unions or Partnerships, 1985-2012.

33. Adoption by Same-Sex Partners: USA 50 state survey Allows Homosexual Singles to Adopt? (All 50 states + DC) Yes: All 50 states allow qualified homosexual singles to adopt Allows Same-Sex Couples to Jointly Petition to Adopt? (15 states Yes or Probably; 22 states no or probably) Yes: 12 states(AL, CA, CO, D.C., IN, ME, MA, NV, NH, NJ, NY, OR, VT) Probably Yes: 3 states (CT, IL, WA) Uncertain: 14 states (FL, ID, IA, MD, MN, MO, NE, NM, ND, PA, RI, TX, VA, WY Probably No: 17 States(AL, AK, AZ, AR, DE, GA, HI, KS, KY, LA, MT, OK, SC, SD, TN, WV, WI) No: 5 states(UT, OH, NC, MS, MI) Same-Sex Second Parent Adoptions? (12 states Yes or Probably; 19 states no or probably) Yes: 11 States(CA, CT, DE, D.C., IN, MA, NV, NJ, NY, PA, VT) Probably Yes: 1 State (IL) Uncertain: 20 states(AK, CO, FL, GA, HI, ID, IA, KS, LA, ME, MD, MI, MN, MO, NM, ND, OR, RI, VA, WA) Probably No: 13 states(AL, AZ, AR, MS, MS, MT, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, WV, WY) No: 6 states(KY, NE, NC, OH, UT, WI) Updated by Travis Robertson, Research Assistant, July 9, 2012

34. Global Status of Legality of Adoption by Gay and Lesbians Couples & Partners October 2009 *Adoption of at least some children by at least some same-sex couples or partners is allowed by specific legislation or a currently binding appellate court ruling in less than ten percent of the 193 sovereign nations belonging to the United Nations. Some Adoptions by Same-Sex Couples & Partners Allowed:* 15 nations Andorra, Belgium, Canada, Denmark,* Finland,* Germany,* Iceland, Israel,* Netherlands, Norway, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, Uruguay. *Only step-children (children of their registered partners), not other children, may be adopted. Adoptions by Same-Sex Couples & Partners OK in some province:* 3 nations Australia, Brazil, and the United States. Adoption by Same-Sex Couples & Partners Prohibited, Likely Prohibited, or Not Allowed: One-hundred seventy-four (174) nations. Constitutionally Prohibited: 5+ nations Bolivia, Ecuador, Honduras, El Salvador, and Guatemala NB: Adoptions by single gay or lesbian individuals are legally potentially permitted: 50+ nations (potentially) E.B. v. France (Applica. No. 43546/02) __ Eur. Ct. H.R. __ (22 Jan. 2008). Potentially all European nations (signatories of Eu Conv. Hu. Rts) might be obliged to permit adoption by single gay/lesbian if all any single adults to adopt.

35. May 2012: Of 19 European nations (data avail): 18 OK gay single; 8 OK gay cpls; 13 OK 2dP

36. The distinction between adoptions by single gay or lesbian adults and by same-sex partners or coupleshas been approved by the European Court of Human Rights interpreting provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights. In E.B. v. France • Court (Applica. No. 43546/02) __ Eur. Ct. H.R. __ (22 Jan. 2009) http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=827961&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber&table=F69A27FD8FB86142BF01C1166DEA398649 (last seen 16 October 2009). • “The present case does not concern adoption by a couple or by the same-sex partner of a biological parent, but solely adoption by a single person.” • “French legislation expressly grants single persons the right to apply for authorisation to adopt and establishes a procedure to that end.”

37. 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, ratified by 74 nations (US), in effect in 72 (US). • Articles 4, 11, 12, 14, 15 & 17 State or Origin & Receiving State may each veto; full disclosure • Article 24 – OrdrePublic (Public Policy) Exception to Other Contracting States Having to recognize LGAdoptions • Legislative History (Official Report) corroborates • HCIA intended to be “neutral” and neither require nor forbid LGAd, but leave it up to each state (Origin and Receiving) to determine and enforce its own policy CONCLUSION: Hague Adoption Convention neither requires nor prohibits inter-national recognition of gay/lesbian adoptions, but leaves that to the policies of the sending and receiving states.

38. The courts have been influenced by legal literature discussing adoption by gays and lesbians that is profoundly biased and distorted. My 1997 survey of the legal literature published between 1990 and 1996 (six years inclusive) found a total of 90 articles, notes, comments, and essays published on the topic of homosexual parenting, of which forty-five (45) favored or supported same-sex partner or couple adoption, the rest were “neutral,” while none (0)clearly opposed. In 2009 My RAs reviewed 126 Law Review Articles, Comments, Notes and Essays Discussing Same-sex Couple or Partner Adoption (Published January 1, 2008 through August 1, 2009) (Joseph Shapiro & Thomas Alvord, Oct. 2009) 84 support same-sex adoption 2 oppose same-sex adoption 40 are neutral toward same-sex adoption  There is much more publishing about gay adoption: 0/year (1970s), to 15/year (1990s) to 80 /year (2008-09), and most of it supports LG Adopts

40. Concerns about Lesbian and Gay Adoptions There are serious limitations upon the use of social science to govern policy re: whether couples should be allowed to adopt (and, if so, who, when, under what circumstances, etc.). Such evidence alone is not dispositive for at least four reasons. • 1) Non-Conclusive Nature of Social Science: “Given the nuances of scientific methodology and conflicting views, courts-which can only consider the limited evidence on the record before them-are ill equipped to determine which view of science is the right one.” Ramsey & Kelly: “Research does not . . . provide the answer to a policy question, because a policy choice is a normative decision.” In family policy formulation: “research cannot replace the normative aspects of decision making.” • Methodological flaws, especially by courts: Ramsey: Judges lack skills . . . . Marks recent (June 2012) Social Science Review report on flaws in the studies relied on in APA court brief

41. Flaws/limitations, cont’d: 3) Too easily manipulated, subjective: Judicial invocation of science is like judicial invocation of legislative history, which Judge Harold Leventhal’s famously described as like “looking over a crowd and picking out your friends.” • Normative Judgment Must Be Added Separately: The factual data must be assessed by normative standards, value determinations, that – like all fundamental human rights issues and questions of good and evil. Professors Ramsey & Kelly warn: “[J]udges need to keep in mind that social science cannot provide complete answers to the difficult questions they confront every day. There are basic tensions between social science knowledge and judicial decision-making.” • Recent research noting differences in outcome defies the conventional wisdom of “no difference” for children of gay or lesbian parents.

42. While There Are Studies on Both Sides, There is Abundant Social Science Research to Support Preference in Adoption for Married Mom-Dad Couples 1) Advantages of Married over Unmarried Heterosexual Parenting: The social science research finding substantial disadvantages for children raised by cohabiting parents or a parent and his/her adult partner is simply overwhelming. Princeton Professor Sara McLanahan’s massive, multi-year longitudinal study of “fragile families” Unmarried fathers are twice as likely as married fathers to have problems with drug use, three times as likely to be violent, and nearly seven times as likely to have been incarcerated in the past. Again, although cohabiting fathers look better than noncoresident fathers on some indicators, the major gap is between married and unmarried fathers [D]espite their high hopes for a future together, only a small proportion of unmarried parents (22 percent) ever follow through on their plans, and even fewer (16 percent) are still married by the time of the five-year interview [A]n important feature of fragile families [is] high partnership instability. We estimate that by the time of the child's third birthday, two-thirds of unmarried mothers have experienced at least one partnership change, more than a third have experienced at least two changes, and nearly 20 percent have experienced three or more changes. “The theoretical arguments for the benefits of marriage are supported by a large body of empirical research, including research on parents' economic and social resources as well as research on outcomes for children and young adults.”

43. Concerns About Same-Sex Partners Adopting: • concern for the best interests of children, • NOT Let adult political/personal agenda’s determine adoption policy/decisions • (2) concern for the institutional integrity of the legal institution of adoption, tarnishing the “gold standard” of adoptive parenting. • Adoption not typical adversary proceeding but largely ex parte, easily manipulated • (International adoption frauds by friently social workers) • (3) concerns about inappropriate judicial policy-making, and • (4) concern about the failure to carefully consider alternatives solutions (e.g., adopt as aunt/uncle, not 2d parent)

44. Most Current Social Science “No Difference” Studies Are Immature, Defective, and Biased • 1. Methodologically flawed, biased, unreliable • Stacey & Biblarz (strong advocate of same-sex parter parenting) admits • Lerner & Nagai (none of 47 studies reliable methodology) • Stephen Nock (all flawed, unreliable) • Dr. George Rekers (studies lacking, need long-term body of data) • (June 2012) Study in Social Science Research by L.S.U. Prof. Loren Mark • 2. Even biased studies suggest potential harm (homo-erotic • identification, attraction, premature sexualization, promiscuity) • (June 2012) Study in Social Science Research by U. Tex Prof. Mark Regnerus • 3. Ignore/Defy all theories of child development • Fail to ask the hard questions (effect on relationships, sex, etc.) • a. Expect lesbigay parents to do many things as well as mom-dad parents such as provide food, clothing, adequate education, etc. So wash-out in adoption, not issue • b. Need to learn about effect on sexual behaviors, interests, of children –premature or delayed sexual behavior, risky sexual behaviors, sexual self-identification, fidelity, promiscuity, effect on relationships are different with parents, siblings, grandparents, future spouses, children.

45. Narratives of the Inner Lives of Children Give Cause for Concern • Narratives of children raised in lesbigay homes identify 8 concerns: • 1. Stability and changing sexual partners • Premature sexualization environment and experience (molesting • taboo) • 3. Alcohol & drug use • 4. Domestic violence • 5. Ignoring needs • 6. Silence and intimidation • 7. Disease, death and separation • 8. Impact on sexual behavior and relations

46. Mark Regnerus, How Different are the Adult Children …,41 Social Sci. Res. 752 (June 2012)

47. An Emerging Problem – Unintended Consequence – of the Hague Adoption Convention • The Hague Convention was intended to facilitate and promote adoptions for parentless children in need of families. However, “in practice, this does not always occur.”(Selman 2012) The facts show that the well-intentioned Hague Adoption Convention actually depresses intercountry adoption. The increased centralized regulation creates costs and delays that have reduced inter-country adoptions. That needs to be fixed immediately.

48. UNICEF estimates about 100 million street children exist in the world today. About forty million are in Latin America, twenty-five to thirty million in Asia, and ten million in Africa It is said that in Bogota, Colombia, 200,000 abandoned street children roam the streets A 2002 UNICEF, UNAIDS study reported that in 2001 there were 108 million orphans (including 13 million AIDS orphans) living in 88 less-developed nations in Africa, Asia and Latin America and the Caribbean, and that by 2010 there would be 107 million orphans (including 25 million AIDS orphans), in those nations The United Nations estimates that approximately 50,000 human beings die every day as a result of poor shelter, water, or sanitation, and parentless children are especially vulnerable to these ravages

49. International adoption is one important component in protecting the welfare of children. While it operates one-child-at-a-time, it makes a huge difference for each of those children, and through those children an even greater impact in the future the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, generally known as “the Hague Convention on IntercountryAdoption As of March 31, 2012, ninety (90) nations had signed, ratified, or acceded to this Hague Convention, and the HCIA had entered into force in all but three of those nations (in 87 nations)

50. Dr. Selman’s most recent report finds that “in 1998 there were just under 32,000 [international] adoptions; by 2004 this number had risen to over 45,000; by 2009 the world total had fallen to under 30,000 – less than in 1998 – and the decline continued in 2010 . . . .” Clearly the trend was of international adoptions increasing through the 1990s, the decade in which the Hague Adoption Convention was adopted and decreasing after it was adopted.