Institutions cannot replace a family in preparing a child for adulthood.

Bill Baker, Slovakia

I work in welfare reform in Slovakia. In our work we have had frequent and intense contact with children in orphanages. Although the children are well fed and cared for research shows that only 5 - 10% of children who grow up in an orphanage successfully integrate into society.

Institutions cannot replace a family in preparing a child for adulthood. In this country, there is a great barrier to adopting these children. So, the only hope for a child in an orphanage from Slovakia is if there is someone from another country who would want to provide the love and normal life that he would be deprived otherwise. To stop adoption would be cold hearted. The humane solution is to discover the flaws in the system and then fix it!
Bill Baker Slovakia

Those children were bought with cold hard cash!! It is immoral and should not be allowed by international laws.
Lucy, Australia

The only losers in this are the babies.

Susan, New Jersey, USA

I was adopted in the 60's. I know how desperate my parents were to conceive a child. They waited five years for an agency to place a baby with them. The Internet is a relatively new phenomenon, and while I see the good that can transpire from people who want to adopt being able to, it can definitely enable unscrupulous people to take advantage of those in need.

Perhaps the only good thing is that new laws may be enacted to make sure this never happens again. Meanwhile, the only losers in this are the babies - and I sincerely hope for their sake this can be resolved quickly and they can have a "normal" family life.
Susan, New Jersey, USA

In a country such as India customs of life started from the necessity of a male child. Here those who have no child don't have the same lives. Here, it is very necessary to adopt a child, not only for life, but also life after death. This is changing very slowly.
Mohan Paliwal, Jaisalmer, India

I don't feel that we bought a baby but I am absolutely sure that some or all of the money we paid was siphoned off into someone's private account

Will Cave, Kathmandu, Nepal

We adopted a Nepali baby three years ago after she was abandoned by her mother in a local hospital. At least she was not thrown in the river or left in a box by a temple. Overseas adoptions are one way of matching childless couples with orphaned or parentless children. The west has an ample supply of subfertile or infertile couples and developing countries such as Nepal are awash with unwanted children for a multitude of reasons. The incredibly tortuous adoption procedures involve a small army of people and can take (took us) six full months of negotiations. Money has to be involved. Even in Nepal the number of man hours worked are not for free. No matter how hard you try, you realise that a proportion of what you pay and "donate" will be misappropriated. I don't feel that we bought a baby but I am absolutely sure that some or all of the money we paid was siphoned off into someone's private account. After all, the orphanage still has the same threadbare mattresses and the building is still in a state of near collapse. In addition, embezzlement of funds is not something peculiar to minor office clerks in Nepal.
Will Cave, Kathmandu, Nepal

I think that the child should not be adopted by anybody. Nobody in this world could replace their mother, who has carried them for 9 months, I believe that no one could give them love and care as much as their natural mother, no matter how poor or whatever the situation of the family would be. There's no place better than Mom's chest and lap. I'm a mother of 4 and never could imagine that I could give one of my children away for any reason. I myself had an experience of having a step mother and now I'm nearly 40 years old. I'm still having a feeling of need of my natural mother's care. I just try my best to give all my love and care to all of my children and try to give them what ever I've missed in my whole life.
Huda Mahroos, Dammam, Saudi Arabia.

I personally find it horrible that children could be "sold" again and again by a mother, as if goods to make a profit. But again, excessively strict regulation, not only in the UK but throughout the world, drives couples honestly wanting to provide a home to seek rather unusual methods to obtain one. On the one hand I'm appalled, and on the other I think neither of the couples looked for even more illegal methods. Trust me, criminal organizations trading with children exist and quite a few seek them, particularly in the Third World.
Joe Key, Mexico (UK family related)

If it means that children get a good home with loving caring parents, where is the harm in it?

Sean Smith, London, England

When we look at the cost of following normal adoption channels, then the heart breaks when things don't work out. When we look at how easy it is to fail the adoption screening ... past financial difficulties, not living in the right side of town, etc, it is easy to see why people will turn to Internet adoption. If it means that children get a good home with loving caring parents, where is the harm in it? The only reason this whole case made the media is because of the way the twins where sold, taken back, re-sold, etc, almost like a commodity. Surely the same laws as a normal adoption should apply here. As I understand it, in a routine adoption the biological parent has a certain time to reconsider their decision. It is something that the adoptive parents are terrified of, but a change of mind is not too common. In the case of the twins, the well-being of these two wonderful children has taken a back seat. Too many people are carrying on about the feelings of the various paternal and adoptive parents involved. In doing this, the system has failed these children and the people involved should be ashamed. They have forgotten the true reasons adoption should take place ... to offer a child or children a better home and a good quality of life in which to grow up.
Sean Smith, London, England

This topic is of great interest to me. Not only am I writing my doctoral dissertation on the ethics of Internet adoptions, but my beautiful nephew was adopted in just this way. I have witnessed both the horror of the situation and the great joy. The bottom line is, adoption facilitators on the Internet must be regulated. Until that happens, there is nothing preventing the unfortunate adoptive parent from being scammed and the innocent child from being sold.
Toni Witherow, USA

She certainly has a better life than she would have had in rural China

Donnamarie Leemann, Coffrane, Switzerland

Two American friends of mine tried to adopt a baby in the USA but were unsuccessful and so investigated international adoption options. They found two agencies, one in India and the other in China. The fee for both was the same, on the order of $10,000. The price of the Indian baby included delivery of her (virtually all babies from either place are female), while the Chinese baby's price included a trip to China to fetch her. They had never been to China, liked the idea of seeing for themselves where their child came from, and so chose the Chinese girl. The girl was about four months old then, and is now four years old. She is healthy and happy and adored by both her parents and everyone who knows her. She certainly has a better life than she would have had in rural China, and her adoption left her birth-parents free to have the boy baby they wanted in the first place. Such adoptions may help further skew the already skewed male-female ratios in places like China and India, but that is ultimately a self-correcting problem. Other than that, I see nothing wrong with such international adoptions. In the case of my American friends, their daughter and her birth-parents, everyone is happy.
Donnamarie Leemann, Coffrane, Switzerland

I think the real problem here is that not the fact that these children were bought, but more on how easily it is to adopt over in the US. There is no regulation or anyway that potential "parents" can be thoroughly checked out. Adopted children need to be with suitable parents.
Lisa, UK

Having worked in the area of child adoption for a number years, I find this a rather problematic one. First and foremost, unfortunately people who carry out child adoption assessments have, in my opinion, too many 'disqualifiers' for people who may be otherwise suitable. Also at the end of the day assessment is not a 'science' it is 'subjective'. I guess if you can provide what is commonly called a loving and secure environment for the child with an emphasis on education for their future you are clearly on the way to being deemed suitable. What the couple did was not wrong, that is not withstanding the other implication attached to 'internet adoption seekers' they did not break any law and I would question what good 'foster care' is at this time. Is it meant as a punishment for the societal wrong doing of the couple or was it really done in the 'interests' of these children?
Graham Peveller, Koh Samui, Thailand

I think the children should stay with one of the adopted parents and to decide on it the social services should carry out an investigation to see who would be the best parents to the children. No children should be bought for any amount of money because when they grow up imagine what they will feel like being told that their parents sold them!
Laura Embleton, Newcasle, England

Perhaps children who are never adopted should sue the agencies for preventing them from being placed in a loving, caring environment

John Alkire, UK/USA

Are there no children in the UK needing adoption that the Kilshaws had to go elsewhere? Aren't the investigation procedures and requirements of the adoption agencies, which aren't uniform, a bit much? I don't recall that much of a check when getting a secret security clearance. If the adoption agencies would put as much effort into 'investigating' married couples and live together partners before they had children there wouldn't be so many children needing adoption. I don't want adoption agencies to become shopping centres for paedophiles, but their investigative powers, depth and final decision abilities are really too much. Perhaps children who are never adopted should sue the agencies for preventing them from being placed in a loving, caring environment.
John Alkire, UK/USA

There are many childless couples who would love to adopt children, but find it difficult to do so, because they do not have the financial resources, or access to the internet. The English adoption system is so very cumbersome and slow, as well as being biased against people over 40, smokers, those who perhaps are overweight, who practise the "wrong religion" or other petty quirks. The Kilshaws should count their blessings, as they have two children who are presumably healthy.
Andy Meal, Woking, Surrey, UK

Perhaps some sort of 'selective breeding program' for humans would be the answer. This would stop people who can ill-afford or have the capacity to look after these children from having them in the first place!
Dave Allen, London, UK

In this day and age when women are encouraged to have a career and helped to give birth naturally after the age of 40, why are the adoption laws in Britain so stringent that prospective adoptive parents are ineligible to adopt a baby if they are over 40? I don't blame the Kilshaws for trying to adopt through the Internet, but circumstances and restrictions forced them to seek adoption from elsewhere. I don't condone their possible illegal actions; the over-restrictive UK adoption system has played a part in this.
S. Jeram (USA, ex UK),

We are dealing with lives and not objects

Prabha Mistry, London

I think the whole situation about the web adoption is questionable. I wonder when children are being sold on the Internet, who is buying them and for what reason? Belinda and Kimberley have suffered so much in their short lives by being pushed from one family to another and who knows how many more families they will see whilst they are growing up? I think its inhumane to sell children on the Internet as we are dealing with lives and not objects.
Prabha Mistry, London

Surely, the real question is not "why or whether babies should be bought on he Internet" but, rather, why should a mother in America, the world's richest country, feel she and her children have no other choice but adoption? Something must be severely wrong in the US for this to happen.
Chris Lowe, UK

I wonder which media mogul is manipulating public opinion this time?

Mike Blaser, UK

Isn't it convenient that all this brouhaha has blown up at exactly the time that Bush has repealed federal funding for abortion-related purposes? Not that this has anything to do with the fact that anti-abortion campaigners tout adoption as being the best way to deal with unwanted pregnancies, of course. I wonder which media mogul is manipulating public opinion this time?
Mike Blaser, UK

I am all for adoption of babies over the internet. But only virtual ones of course.
Chris, Belgium

Let us all hope these kids get better treatment than most children when they are taken "into care". I would take my chances with the Kilshaws any day compared with the care that can be offered by social services. Let's not forget the tragic stories of the ineptitude of these "carers" that filled our newspapers over the last few weeks.
Dick Stroud, London, UK

I have just watched an hour long programme devoted to the twin girls, on NBC Dateline. It was revealed by NBC reporters that two other couples in NY and Ohio, had also attempted to adopt the babies but withdrew when large amounts of money entered the picture. The Kilshaws were also interviewed and featured prominently in the programme. It is disgraceful, in this day and age, that people can so easily, cross international and state boundaries and trade in children.
Patricia, Sims Settlement, Canada

Surely, if these children are given the chance of a happy, loving and secure home, who are we to say that this is in any way wrong?
Helen Purkiss, age 17, Manchester, England

The law needs to be tightened internationally to prevent Internet adoption from being so lax. If nothing is done, how far away from slavery will we be? Human beings are not a commodity. This indicates the selfish needs of people being fulfilled. The Kilshaws have already had a crack at parenthood, why not give that opportunity to other couples?
David, UK

So, Tony Blair is "disgusted" is he? Not as disgusted as people are with the over-regulated adoption system which puts political correctness before people's lives.
Mark, UK

Surely they have not deserved the vicious coverage they have received

Helen, UK

Let's not be two-faced; infertile people often have to pay lots of money to have a baby - think of the cost of IVF which is prohibitive to poor would-be-parents. If private adoption agencies are available then it is not unreasonable that they should charge for costs (i.e. transport, medical fees etc). And in this case the Internet seems to have been used like the Yellow Pages - is there anything wrong with that? The problem here is that the Kilshaws wanted to bring these children to the UK without seeing fit to meet the criteria for UK adoptive parents - thankfully it looks as though legislation will prevent this corner-cutting. Their only other wrong was to be naive as regards the media. Surely they have not deserved the vicious coverage they have received.
Helen, UK

Martin from the UK exaggerates the cost of adoption from China. The total bill for our adoption came to around �10,000. However, the biggest single expense was the payment to Social Services for our home study. After that, the remaining costs included flights, hotels, meals, guides / translators, legal fees (in the UK and in China) and a donation to the orphanage. This donation was $3000 (US), which in our case works out at about 100 pounds for every month that our daughter was in the care of the orphanage. When we consider the children still waiting in the orphanages, and the ongoing care that they need, $3000 does not seem like a great deal of money.
Dan, UK

There are many children who are in the care of social services rather than being with a family. The strict regulations on who is allowed to adopt a child result in many children staying in homes until they are adults. Isn't it better to give them a permanent home.

I don't agree with the way the Kilshaws got custody of these babies, but I question the reason behind removing them. The Kilshaws have two other children. Are social services saying that the two babies are at risk while the other children are not? Or is it that they feel that they must remove these children because of public outrage. Every child needs a home!
C Williams, UK

There should be a ban on any financial dealings when it comes to adoption. Children are not commodities, and it seems that many people need to be reminded of this. When Britain becomes a country where children can be bought I will renounce my citizenship. There are too many children in need in the U.K. as it is , and if a couple are unfit to look a British child , why should they be any more fit to look after an American one?
Sean Hanley, Hong Kong

If they have lost �24k then so be it

Chris Powell, Wales

I consider what they have done is morally wrong and absolutely repugnant. From what I can see of the individuals, there was obviously no way that they would be allowed to adopt under UK laws. If they have lost �24k then so be it. They should now leave Wales for a life elsewhere and not demean the country I live in any further than they have. I abhor them.
Chris Powell, Wales

I am unable to have children so I suppose, following the arguments that some put forward here, I should just buy one. Now following this line of argument, I'm assuming that my purchase should be protected as any other. So if the child fails to live up to my expectations I can get my money back?
Fiona Young, USA (British)

As a prospective adopter of 40+, my partner and I have found the internet a useful research tool. Even the UK agencies utilise it to 'advertise' children needing homes. For example, if we were to adopt a child from China, once vetted by Social Services, we would need to pay �10-12,000 for each child. Supposedly to cover all the administrative and legal costs as well as a 'donation' to an orphanage. Can one really say this is not 'buying' a child?
Martin, UK

By over-regulating adoption procedures in the UK, couples are forced to try seemingly easier routes. The children waiting in care in the UK are deprived of the loving family they need so desperately. Although some checks and balances are necessary in vetting out couples, let us not forget the abuse and suffering that children have passed through when in care homes. Speeding up and simplifying adoption procedures will decrease the attraction of the baby trade. .
David, England

There are controls in place that should have stopped this adoption - some reports indicate the mother lied about Arkansas residency. Existing laws should be enforced to their full extent. The media has jumped on the 'evil' Internet bandwagon yet again, the BBC's own article overtly stating "the internet popular with paedophiles." So are magazines, videos, cars and telephones! Had this 'adoption' taken place as a result of a phone call and 'catalogue' being mailed to the prospective parents, would your reporters and editors continually highlight the use of telephones and US/Royal Mail? Come on BBC, get over the sensationalism and report the important facts of this story.
Mike Garrard, Scotland

I think that this is a case of Social Services exceeding their remit

Silas Denyer, UK

Am I the only one to think that the use of an Emergency Protection Order to remove these children into care is scandalous? Where is the serious danger to these children that such an order implies? I think that this is a case of Social Services exceeding their remit (i.e. getting into political debates) not seen since the Marietta Higgs debacle a decade ago.
Silas Denyer, UK

I think there is absolutely nothing wrong with selling the babies over the internet. It may sound as though they are being bought for money like slaves but if they were given away it wouldn't seem as bad. It's just a quick way of finding adoption and finding better parents.
Andrew Hopkins, 16, United Kingdom

A witch hunt is being exercised upon this couple who openly admitted that they paid for the adoptive children over the internet. Social services have trumped up charges to take the twins into care, with the view to returning the twins to their natural mother. Why? So the natural mother can sell the twins again? Although the internet is not the ideal place to adopt children, this practise of selling children for adoption is common in the USA and other countries, not every country in the world has the tight vetting procedure in place in the UK. Just how many couples in this country have 'bought' children over the internet and stayed silent about it? This couple's only crime is that they openly admitted it and exposed the practise. Childless couples wouldn't resort to such drastic and costly measures in this county if our vetting procedure wasn't such a lengthy process.
Susan Nichol, England

There are many orphans in the world waiting for adoption, the earthquake in El Salvador has left tens of homeless children, many of them have lost the whole family, in this situation, adoption is necessary, on the other hand, the sales arrangement of the American twins is different, the selfishness and inhumanity, are clear in this case.
Nasif Masad, Palestine

The children should be taken off the natural mother and put through the proper adoption system

Karl, UK

The practice of selling human beings has been outlawed for how long? And here we are in the 21st century selling children to the highest bidder. It's disgusting. If the money that changed hands was simply an administrative fee, I would like to know how much of this 'fee' the natural mother got? How much paperwork did she do? The children should be taken off the natural mother and put through the proper adoption system that does its best to find decent homes for these kids.
Karl, UK

A number of issues on this situation bother me:
1. Exactly when was slavery re-introduced? Last time I knew buying people was called slavery, not adoption.
2. If the birth mother decided to put her children up for adoption, where did the 'cost' come from? And who decided on how much? If the birth mother really has been paid, what does she plan to do with the money - have another baby?
Andrew, UK

I do not feel that the twins would be best off in the care of such a self-centred and uncompromising pair

AG, Scotland

The children's best interests must come first, before the Kilshaws longing for a daughter. Throughout this episode, the Kilshaws have been unwilling to admit to having acted in a morally questionable way, and have appeared to blame everyone but themselves. I do not feel that the twins would be best off in the care of such a self-centred and uncompromising pair.
AG, Scotland

What's the problem? Any adoption process is no more of a lottery than who you end up with as natural parents anyway!
Ian Marlow, England

Using the internet to arrange adoptions is only OK if the adopting people are thoroughly vetted by a competent and informed independent authority. What is far more important is that the Social Services rushed to take these babies away from the people who were caring for them but consistently fail to take children such as Anna Climbie away from the guardians.
Adrian Bailey, UK

The whole process stinks

Peter, UK

The whole process stinks. Surely the main beneficiaries should be the children. Instead the agency has been shown to be dubious in their actions. The original parents saw these babies as a source of revenue. The adoptive parent's glory in the media attention the scandal has brought and are probably commanding interview fees. The media who - despite their shallow 'concern' - will be paying thousands for the parents stories under the banner of 'public interest' and the final pig at the trough - the lawyers who will now reap a fortune from the prolonged court battle they will no doubt encourage. If this is the inter-woven set of disreputable interests this type of 'service' feeds then let us ban it now.
Peter, UK

The only reason this is blown out of proportion is because the internet has been involved, and the mindless masses see the net as a bad thing. This could just as easily have been done by phone, fax, or post. The Kilshaws were approved as adoptive parents by a court of competent jurisdiction in the US and therefore the adoption is legal. Now social "services" have decided to interfere and further traumatise the two children. The whole thing reeks of hypocrisy to me.
Karl Peters, UK

It's funny how when the media spotlight is on these twins that social services is on the case like a flash. Pity they couldn't react so quickly in the case of Anna Climbie
Claire and Tuba, UK

Isn't it against the law to buy another human being?

Susannah, Australia

Isn't it against the law to buy another human being? I think that both sets of parents as well as the natural birth mother should be prosecuted. For those who think that there is nothing wrong with this, just think of all the paedophiles who will be able to buy children for their own perversions if this kind of thing is legalised and accepted.
Susannah, Australia

The internet is a genuine information and trading medium. Thus it is legitimate to 'advertise' children in need of adoptive parents. This is not 'selling' a child. The twins were not 'purchased' via the internet - they were simply identified as being in need. If control is needed it must be at the level of the agency facilitating the adoption. How much one is able to pay is of no relevance to the welfare of the child.
Clive, Kenya

What's wrong with people using the internet to arrange adoption?

Sarah Davies, England

What's wrong with people using the internet to arrange adoption? Was there the same outrage when people adopted from abroad over the phone? No. We have seen in the UK what happens when things get over-regulated, the kids stay in care homes rather than with willing and loving families. Th comments here reflect the general public's lack of trust and respect for other people's integrity.
Sarah Davies, England

Well, I personally find it very disgusting, children being traded online to the highest bidder. For God's sake we are talking about young human lives and not cars...
Zulfiqar Ali, Pakistan/ USA

Given that in China unwanted baby girls are left to die in the streets, would tightening the current adoption regulations do anything to help them or their prospective overseas parents?
Alex Pinkerton, Scotland

How can anyone protect these children if they have been "bought on the internet"?

Sharon, UK

What I can't understand is that if you can use a keyboard you can buy a baby. How can anyone protect these children if they have been "bought on the internet" and fed into the hands of paedophiles. We are encouraging an easy way of more child abuse. Unfortunately the children do not have a choice, it's up to us to at least give them a chance of a decent life.
Sharon, UK

The major argument I am hearing here is that insufficient controls existed to decide if the Kilshaws were unfit parents. How arrogant! These children are American citizens, therefore, they are subject to American law. The Kilshaws were examined by an agent of the American justice system and granted adoption. If the Kilshaws violate English law (child endangerment, etc) then they are subject to that law. Otherwise, it is the height of hypocrisy for you to say that America is a sovereign nation but cannot decide what is best for her citizens.
Michael Brown, USA

Being taken into care is no protection from violence or paedophilia

Emma, England

In response to other reader's comments, recent news articles show that being taken into care is no protection from violence or paedophilia. And there is certainly no shortage of babies and children in desperate need of good homes. More unwilling and traumatized mothers refused abortion will not solve the problem. Careful vetting is, of course, essential to the adoption process, but we need to get over idiotic restrictions of age, background and lifestyle before more children will go to the loving homes which so desperately want them.
Emma, England

In response to other reader's comments, recent news articles show that being taken into care is no protection from violence or paedophilia. And there is certainly no shortage of babies and children in desperate need of good homes. More unwilling and traumatized mothers refused abortion will not solve the problem. A family friend and her husband trying to adopt recently were refused on grounds of age, simply because she is over 35. They were recommended to try for IVF treatment instead. Careful vetting is, of course, essential to the adoption process, but we need to get over idiotic restrictions of age, background and lifestyle before more children will go to the loving homes that so desperately want them.
Emma, England

This business about an 'internet' adoption is a bit of a red herring. The internet is just another means of communication. The same thing could have happened with an adoption over the fax or via a photograph sent via the post. The fact remains that the human need to procreate is strong enough that people will go to extraordinary lengths to have a child of their own. Our Social Services don't seem to be making the the process any easier.
Aris, UK

With the majority of child abuse occurring within families, surely too much regulation is better than too little

Jason Gorringe, UK

As a potential adoptive parent myself I find many of the comments about the UK system misleading. Age does NOT automatically preclude adoption. Social services attempt to place children with parents who fit within the right age range for birth parents. If the adoptive parents are over 45, then they may adopt, but the minimum age of the children they adopt will be older. The regulations in the UK may seem strict, but they exist to protect the child. With the majority of child abuse occurring within families, surely too much regulation is better than too little.
Jason Gorringe, UK

Whilst adoption is undoubtedly too difficult in the UK, the attitude that you have some fundamental right to have children is exactly what fuels deals such as these! And why has nobody expressed concern that not only have the Kilshaws already got children, they are both about 45 and will be lucky to see their grandchildren grow to any significant age?
Steve, UK

Currently there are many children in appalling conditions in many parts of the world. Why do the authorities fail to help these children find homes where they may be cared for by new parents? In this country there are far more potential adopters than children. This would bring much happiness and is cheap.
Dominic Connor, UK

This is a v