How would you feel if your baby was seized from your arms by government officials? Just ask a Korean-born American mother. How would you feel if you were being investigated by the prosecution for child abduction for adopting a child? Ask the same mother.

How would you feel if you were accused of violating adoption law for assisting a mother in having her child adopted by a loving family? Ask a young dedicated Korean director of a homeless shelter for women.

And how would you feel if you were being investigated for child abduction for introducing a young mother to a person willing to adopt your child? Ask a Korean pastor.

An overzealous government official from the Ministry of Health and Welfare, with seemingly no formal legal training, is wrongfully claiming that even private adoptions under the Civil Act are under the auspices of the Ministry of Health and Welfare. The official seems to misunderstand that adoptions entrusted to the Ministry of Health and Welfare are only adoptions for “children requiring protection.”

The adopting family, biological parents, and the parents of the biological parents consulted with a Korean-based law firm to assist with a private adoption under Korean Civil Law. The lawyer defending the director, who formerly was a judge and a member of the Korean National Assembly, has rightfully noted in a local vernacular that: “Since the child wasn’t abandoned or entrusted to a facility, she can’t be seen as a ‘child requiring protection’ and therefore this is not an illegal adoption. ... The Ministry of Health and Welfare, with its firm determination, is actually violating the human rights of the birth mother and foster parents.”

What the heck is going on? The adopting parents are definitely not the issue. The mother was born in Korea and adopted a child, successfully, 10 years ago. I am not sure, but it seems likely that it is overreaching by the government and background to the law that seems a little ridiculous. At the same time, well-meaning Koreans have revised their adoption regulations, partially out of a misplaced nationalism.

Just as a crackdown on prostitution has created even greater numbers of prostitutes, well-meaning government policy that is rushed through the National Assembly lacks a thorough understanding of all major related issues, including Korean family culture. Rather than allowing adequate study and common sense to determine regulatory improvements, politicians have created a paradigm that has led to an increase in non-adopted orphans. While these well-meaning people are trying to preserve some kind of notion of cultural and racial purity (whatever that really may be), in this increasingly small world, they all might as well be standing at the beach ordering the tide not to come in.

Beyond the ongoing pathos of this particular case, we need to recognize what is really going on in Korea. In isolation, the current regulations may not be the problem. The real problem is Korean society changing much more slowly than legislative reform.

Many South Koreans quite understandably feel uncomfortable that their nation in effect remains a major baby exporter in spite of the country’s otherwise remarkable strides. Furthermore, the North Koreans seem to delight in irritating the South Koreans about their overseas adoptions. As such, overall government policies from as early as 1976 have been issued to encourage South Koreans to adopt orphans while reducing overseas adoptions by as much as 3 to 5 percent each year.

But, as one Korean adoption worker noted, Korean people are rather picky in adoptions with their own preferences for same blood type, pretty looks and health, the education background of birth parents, et cetera. Furthermore, “flawed” babies displaying any kind of handicap are virtually rejected by prospective Korean adopting parents. And, these days now that girls are “in,” Korean baby orphan boys are in overabundance.

Furthermore, while only 1 percent of American unwed mothers give their children up for adoption, some 80-90 percent do so in South Korea. Consequently there are many more orphans per capita in Korea as a result of cultural patterns, even though many if not most unwed mothers’ families could financially handle the extra load of supporting a daughter’s child.

Today, while roughly 60 percent of all Korean adoptions are kept domestically ― a major improvement over past years ― this is actually only a slight uptick in real numbers and does not offset the greater fall in overseas adoptions as a result of quota-based denials. The net result is that many more Korean orphans are now destined for continued institutionalized care until age 19. Furthermore, in spite of Korean orphanages being heavily subsidized by the government, a U.N. study found them to be understaffed and inadequate for their responsibilities.

All of which bring us back to essential questions: Ultimately for whose interests are Korean policymakers and bureaucrats most concerned? Are they of the children’s welfare or a nationalist pride? And what are the motivations that are blocking this Korean-American from resuming her home life with her baby girl? Questions, such as these, need to be urgently answered and considered before more needless suffering takes place between families willing to adopt and Korea’s oversupply of orphans.

By Tom Coyner

Tom Coyner is president of Soft Landing Korea, a business development firm, and an alliance partner of Odgers Berndtson Japan, a global Big Six executive recruitment consulting company. ― Ed.