Fleas Biting

Monday, November 19, 2007

Workshop 1.3, Part II: Ensuring Ethical Relinquishing Practices--Questions

Ethics and Accountability Conference
Sponsored by Ethica and Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute
October 15-16, 2007

Bullet points for discussion during this workshop:

What elements should be included in true options counseling?
What should the rights of relinquishing mothers and fathers be?
What is an appropriate time period during which relinquishing parents should be able to reverse their decisions to place their children for adoption?
How can informed consent to adoption be assured?
What services can be put into place to protect the rights of relinquishing parents?

Panelists:

Melissa Griebel is the Vice President of Ethica, Inc. The mother of two boys, both adopted through domestic, transracial adoptions, she enjoys open adoptions with both sons’ birth families. Melissa, who has served on the Foster Care Review Board for Pima County, Arizona and who moderates two forums addressing domestic adoption issues, has a strong interest in the ethics of domestic adoption, and a special interest in the issues that affect transracial adoptees and their families.

Frederick F. Greenman Jr. is the legal advisor to and former Director of the American Adoption Congress and the Treasurer and a director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute. Senior counsel to amici curiae in the historic case, Doe v. Sundquist, upholding the 1995 Tennessee Adoption Act, he also assisted counsel in the Does v. Oregon, upholding the ballot initiative and statute which granted adoptees from Oregon access to their original birth certificates. His interest in the subject stems from having surrendered a daughter for adoption at her birth and with whom he reunited 15 years ago.

Jini L. Roby, JD, MSW, MS an attorney and social worker, is an associate professor of social work at Brigham Young University, where she researches and teaches global issues of children at risk, including those who are adopted. She is a former adoption social worker, president of the Utah Adoption Council, founder and director of an agency to prevent and treat child abuse, and a guardian ad litem attorney for children in the public child welfare system. She has assisted several governments of sending countries to establish laws, regulations, and services to birth families contemplating adoption.

Susan Livingston Smith , Program & Project Director of the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, is a leading scholar in the field of post-adoption services. A licensed clinical social worker and Emerita Professor of Social Work at Illinois State University, she has published books and numerous articles in scholarly journals.

Part I of this workshop is available at Workshop 1.3 Part I: Ensuring Ethical Relinquishing Practices

Questions:

Question 1: from Shelley Damen with Choice Moms: What do we do to protect the rights of minors placing children for adoption, particularly in the US, but also internationally?

Susan Livingston Smith

When I did research for this paper (see , I read a lot of state laws.
I found that a lot of states have specific enforced requirements in dealing with minors even when they don't have requirements for persons of majority age.
Having counseling and legal representation are important.
In terms of coercion, social workers often talk about the parents telling the minors that they have to surrender the child for adoption. Social workers must tell parents that this will not be a legal adoption if you force your child to put her baby up for adoption. It has to be her decision. She is the parent.
In practice we have to do things to empower minors to make their own decisions--and not to be coerced or forced to make a certain decision, whether it be by boyfriends, parents, or anyone else.

Fred Greenman

In practice, of course, it depends on the provisions in the state law.
As a matter of principle, it really doesn't make much difference--whatever their age, expectant parents in this situation will be very vulnerable. I don't think an arbitrary dividing line of 18 or 21 or whatever makes much difference in terms of vulnerability.

Jini Roby

Internationally it is so culture-driven.
There are countries where a person has to be an adult under their national laws to relinquish and there are other countries where--and I'd say that this is most countries--where there is no law.
Parental input is present and very important.

Question 2: From Bernadette Wright of Origins USA: I wanted to comment on what Susan said about the time that a parent should have after birth to surrender. Susan said that it should be no more than a month because of issues of bonding with the temporary caregiver. What about the bonding that takes place between the mother and baby during the nine months of pregnancy? Doesn't it make sense to take the time to ensure that the baby and mother are not unnecessarily separated because coercion or because of the mother not yet being in the frame of mind to make a good decision

Susan Livingston Smith

I didn't say that it should be no more than a month. I said that state laws should at least give a month. It would be great if they would give longer.
I said that it would not harm an infant to be in temporary care for a month or two so that parents could make that decision.
There is often a push from birthparents who don't want their child to be in foster care. Many times when you try to give birthparents more time, the birthparents say, well I don't want my child to be in foster care.
There is also a push from adoptive parents to get the child into their home as soon as possible.
All I'm saying is that it doesn't harm the child to be in good temporary care. It wouldn't harm the child to stay in temporary care for up to six months.
In fact there are some countries that make provision for a place where new mothers can go with their new babies and get help and support while they think about making that decision after the baby is born.

Jini Roby

Yes, how many adoption agencies make provision for the birthmother to go back to where she was staying before she gave birth?
In other words, is the adoption decision sometimes driven by a lack of a place for the mother to stay and get help and support while she makes her decision after the birth?

Melissa Griebel

I think its important to realize that even where there's a law that says that decisions can be made after a few days or a month, those laws do not mean that the decision HAS to be made then. It's important to know that that decision can be made later.
Again, that's where good options counseling would make sure that expectant parents know that that decision can be made after four days or whatever, but that it doesn't HAVE to be made then. The decision could be made at a month or two months or whenever. It doesn't have to be made on the first day that they are allowed to make the decision.

Question 3: from Carol Lawson from Adoption Options in Colorado: We are an agency that counsels expectant mothers. Only 80% of those expectant mothers who made a prior adoption plan follow through with that plan. That is, 20% change their mind. We do offer a cradle plan for birthmothers who come to us late in pregnancy whereby they can place their children in temporary care until they make up their minds what they want to do. Colorado is a tight state in regard to the legal process. One concern that I have is adoption facilitators that are not legal in Colorado but that come into Colorado and fly the birthmothers out to other states. I think that is a real dilemma for birthmothers nationally--the movement across states--because things are not as tight in other states as they are in Colorado.

Melissa Griebel

We agree. That is a real problem because you end up with a birthmother in a state where she does not live.
And there she is by herself with an agency.
And if she decides not to place there she is. Where is she going? Does she Does she have a car seat? Does she have money to buy diapers? How will she get home? And those are very big issues.

Question 4: from Jennifer Hemsley an adoptive parent who writes the Great Wall of China Nightmare blog I'm finding this meeting--and I don't know if I'm the only one feeling this--but it's very anti-adoptive parent. I find this very disturbing because I love my children very much. I just heard from one of the panelists here that adoptive parents are non-parents and I find that very offensive. I am mostly knowledgeable about Chinese and Guatemalan adoption. Despite all that I'm finding that I agree 100% with many of the things you guys are saying--time for the birthmother for decision making, etc. However, I'm wondering if we are living on the same planet because I am actually living in Guatemala right now and I see these things as absolutely impossible to implement--absolutely impossible. I met the birthmother of my second child, and as wonderful as that experience has been, I can say that there is no way, absolutely no way that she could take care of this child. And so I'm finding all of this very one-sided and very anti-adoptive parent.

Susan Livingston Smith: What part do you think is impossible to implement in a foreign country?

Jennifer Hemsley

Guatemala is too poor. Guatemala is too poor to implement what you're talking about.
You are talking about implementing legal representation to the birthmothers. That's absolutely impossible. That's absolutely impossible to do right now. That's absolutely impossible.
You know, you're talking about language barriers. We're talking about Mayan women. I believe that there are eight different languages in Guatemala alone. I mean these are women who come from very remote villages and who come into Guatemala City.
What you're talking about is in an ideal world.
But what do you do with these children?

Melissa Griebel: I don't think that's true.

Jennifer Hemsley

I do think it's true. I live in Guatemala right now.
I mean I totally agree with what you guys are saying but it's not realistic when you are talking about countries that are still developing.

Roby

I agree with you that the resources are very scarce in lots of developing countries.
But I will again underscore that it is possible if...if there is a will...if there is a will....
If that will springs up from that country or whether it comes from outside, the will can be created.
And it doesn't necessarily have to be money that provides that.
There is no reason that you have to have trained attorneys with ten years of experience doing this counseling. You can train people who are indigenous in various cultures to do this. It does take some money, but it's not impossible.
I have seen several sending countries where there is a strong will to do it--it is possible.
It's a matter of being very creative and having a strong determination to create these kinds of services. I do agree with you that it is a difficult battle in many countries.

Fred Greenman

Two things....You have to remember what the topic of this session is--and that is Ensuring Ethical Relinquishments--and so yes, we tend to focus on the part of the ethical process to do with birthparents. That partly explains it.
Let me also say that in my own family we have adopted two children. And my closest friend has adopted a child. And these were cases in which adoption was necessary.
Certainly I believe that adoption is a fine thing where it is necessary--when the birthparent can't take care of the child.
The problem comes in when the birthparent is pressured to relinquish because there is such a strong demand for adoptable infants.
And where there is such a large amount of money involved that it creates enormous problems for expectant parents in the decision making and relinquishment process.

Jennifer Hemsley

I totally agree and I guess I see the problem as being with adoption agencies.
I myself lost $35,000 with an unethical agency.
The problem is not so much the adoptive parents per se, but with the agencies in middle who are profiteering. Not with the adoptive parents.
I guess I could do with less negativity on the adoptive parents. I love my children as I'm sure you do.

Melissa Griebel

I was going to add that I'm an adoptive parent too. There is not a negativity on this panel towards adoptive parents. And I love my children too, just like you do.
And I think part of the key to changing things is that the mindset changes from the level of the adoptive parent as well.
We all have our place in changing the way these issues are handled...in all of our adoptions. Not just domestic adoptions but also international adoptions as well.
And when those mindsets change from where we (as adoptive parents) are, from the agency standpoint, from where everybody stands within this process, then the mindset will change.
And we all--even adoptive parents--have a part in that.

Question 5: from Ann Carmen, a birthparent and an attorney: I'd like to endorse Fred's comments that you can't make an informed consent, and I might add, a voluntary consent--because if it's not informed, then it's not voluntary--without independent counsel. I think the idea of having legal aid type representation for everybody—including birthparents of all ages, beyond just minors.—is a good one. I'd also like to suggest that relinquishments be taken by judges as opposed to agencies--because judges can really probe whether the consent is informed and voluntary. I certainly think you need a period in which you are not allowed to relinquish and then a period in which you can revoke that relinquishment. And I am confused that the Evan B. Donaldson Institute is recommending a period of 3-7 days when you have told us, Susan, that you have talked to OB's who say that hormones are crazy for at least 2 weeks after birth. I'd also like to note that in every comment you made when you spoke, you talked about expectant parents or birthparents---uh, we're PARENTS. And counseling should not just be before you give birth but also after you give birth, because there is a huge difference between being confronted with an unwanted pregnancy and being confronted with a live baby. I relinquished at age 40--a law professor, married to a 37 year old law professor, under very unusual circumstances. And we didn't intend to be birthparents so we didn't get any counseling. In fact we didn't get any counseling until our kid was almost 3 months old because our life went crazy. And there was still coercion, and in many ways, uninformed consent.

And then I want to ask what you--all of you here on the panel--are doing to fight for decent relinquishment times and decent revocation periods.

We in Maryland have a 30 day revocation period because I and Linda Clausen-- who is here behind me and who is the head of our local CUB (Concerned United Birthparents)--have fought to get something like 6 to 8 times to keep that 30 day period--we have put enormous pressure on the system to keep it at 30. I would also like to mention that 10 years ago the AAC (American Adoption Congress) supported us, but in recent years when we have gone to the AAC for support, they've said, "That's not a part of our mission." I think this stance should be reconsidered.

Fred Greenman

[who is an advisor to and a Director of the American Adoption Congress]
I want the specifics on that.

Ann Carmen

You were not the person who said it.
I also want to say that extended family should be a part of pre-relinquishment counseling. Extended family on both sides.
And people should be told about resources like CUB (Concerned United Birthparents). CUB is the largest birthparent organization in the country.
And I don't mean just CUB, but people should have an opportunity to speak to people who have relinquished and who have mixed feelings about it.

Question 6: from Marley Grenier of Bastard Nation and of the blog The Daily Bastardette: There are other forms of coercion that I have real problems with--such as becoming very friendly--the PAP's and the expectant parents becoming friendly with each other. The PAP's presence in the delivery room. To me this is very coercive.

There are other things, like the Choose Life License Plate Campaign where the funds are collected for special license plates in various states. These funds go to programs for women who promise to relinquish their children. I suppose they can change their minds and they're not going to come after them. But to me this is a real coercion. If you tell an agency, “I'm going to relinquish the child,” and once the child is born, you change your mind-- but you've already gotten services from them.

Melissa Griebel: Like promises of a college education.

Question 7: from Gary Gamer who is the parent of a 9 year old son from Korea and the CEO of Holt International Children's Services: I am really happy that we are talking about relinquishment within the context of international adoption. It is, by far, the lightning rod--the most abused arena and the one that puts an almost indelible blemish on our work. I'll be talking about the financial improprieties in a workshop related to international adoption in the morning. But right now there are two points I'd like to make with the conversation here.

The first is so vitally important. The person who actually takes the relinquishment, the person who is leading that process...should not be a judge, should not be a businessman....should not be a facilitator...should not be somebody who's paid on the basis of whether that child is placed or not. It should be a social worker. No question about it. A social worker who is working within the best interest of that child. And it is possible find and train social workers almost anywhere.

For example, Guatemala is a country that has a strong tradition of social work. It's just a matter of identifying the social workers and inserting them into the process--into the proper slots to make that work.

The second point I'd like to make is that when it comes to support of birthparents—support for them to keep their children--this isn't rocket science. We're talking about counseling; we're talking about medical intervention. It could very well be that that parent's going to agree to give up that child.

Different countries for example have different stigmas attached to a child being born out of wedlock. It varies. The crisis center that we run in the Phillipines, for example--of the mothers that come there--90% of mothers with children born out of wedlock will keep their children. In Korea, it's different. It's probably less than half because of the stigma within that culture.

You can take your $35,000 and put it in Romania, let alone Uganda, and keep 200 children with their birthfamilies--if it's within their best interests. If it's the safest thing for them. That technology is there. If there is an agency that is charging those kinds of fees, they can take those fees and within a couple of year period of time do all those things that we're talking about. It's very doable.

Question/Comment 8: from Cheryl Miller from Remember International, a grassroots program for AP's to help orphanages in Haiti: I understand your frustration. We had someone in place in Haiti and he took the money and ran. The second person who we thought was wonderful--he turned out to be a nightmare. In Guatemala, they have social workers; in Haiti they have social workers. It's just a matter of plugging people into the right places. The agencies who work in these places--as consumers and there's a word for you--but as consumers we need to say to the agencies, “I'm not going to adopt through you if you don't put money back into the community.” Who says that with a loud voice? Adoptive parents don't say that with a loud voice.

Corrupt facilitators want us to believe that there is nothing that we can do. That there can't be any counseling available there. That's what they want.

Question/Comment 9: from Stan Phillip an adoption attorney in Virginia: I represent both adoptive parents and birth parents. I never do it at the same time. And if I'm representing one-- the law doesn't require it—but—I make sure the other side has an attorney too. I make sure that it is a quality attorney--somebody who is knowledgeable. Our jobs as attorneys is to make sure that our clients are making their own decisions in an educated manner--that they are getting services and that those services include going through the options very thoroughly. We want those birthparents to know what they're doing and to make their own decisions. We try to get our birthparents in as early as possible in the process so that they can have multiple counseling sessions and come to an educated decision. And I know that many of my colleagues, including Susan Stockum, who is here from Florida, and all of us who are a part of American Academy of Adoption Attorneys, try to support an informed process for our clients.

Question/Comment 10: from Linda Clausen, a birthmother and a social worker working in foster care and adoption: Can anyone speak a little more to the time a birthmother is given for relinquishment? I have worked on legislation in Maryland and I am proud to say that our CUB group has kept it at 30 days--but, in doing that, very many times we came up against those opposing us and mostly it's been adoption attorneys. And these attorneys will try to get it to 7 days. It had been 15 days in most places, but when we began looking at this wonderful and informative site on the NIAC website--which now seems to be gone--we suddenly found that the period had gone, almost overnight, in most states, to 0 days. It seems to be adoption attorneys who did this. Can you tell us anymore about how it got this way?

Susan Livingston Smith

NAIC (National Adoption Information Clearinghouse) is a child welfare information gateway, just to clarify for everyone.
When I did the research for the Evan B. Donaldson paper, I know that there were only 17 states of the 50 which had a revocation period at all. Most of them were shorter rather than 30 days.
I don’t know, but I believe that in conflicts of interest in adoption, adoptive parents and their representatives have more power and money--in getting laws passed, etc. That's just the way things are right now.
People who do adoption—their fees are paid by adoptive parents. Considering where the money comes from, there is a natural tendency to protect those interests.
Many times you really have to emphasize the ethics of the situation to do a good job of protecting ALL parties' interests.
Agencies that do a good job of protecting birthparents' interests often have separate departments. One department that works with birthparents. One that works with adoptive parents.
And they say that your job is to ‘advocate for expectant parents”—I use the term, “birthparent”—because when I became an adoption social working with birthparents in 1968-1970, we were told our job was with “birthparents.” Looking through the literature, now I know that the term expectant parents should be used, but I often slip and say birthparents.
But you are right—no one is a birthparent until she/he actually signs a document to relinquish.
It takes a highly ethical practitioner to do justice to protect the rights of expectant parents as much as we naturally do adoptive parents. And That’s not because expectant parents aren't just as important.
But I think it's just that expectant parents have less people with power advocating for them.
Until we can balance that, the laws are not going to be fair to everybody.

Fred Greenman

I want to commend Mr. Phillips for what he said and yes, there are ethical adoption attorneys--and yes, I know several of them.
However, we should not have to rely on individual consciences in a situation that pressures people to behave unethically.
We should change the situations so that people will be forced to act ethically.
That's why we have conflict of interest rules.
As an attorney, you don't try to represent birthparents and adoptive parents in the same transaction. Not all attorneys are that scrupulous, unfortunately.
Different states have different rules. The task of discussion like this is to try to formulate rules and laws that would contribute to ethical practice.

The preceding are detailed notes. They do not constitute the exact words of the speakers, but a--hopefully accurate--summary of the ideas of these presentations and questions. If any of the panelists or attendees take issue with any of these summaries, please let me know so that I can correct them.

Desiree

Sunday, November 18, 2007

US Adoption Agency Employee Charged with Defrauding Agency of More than Half-a-Million Dollars

A 60 year old woman has been charged with fifteen counts of federal mail fraud and five counts of tax evasion after a Federal investigation revealed that she allegedly stole $600,000 dollars from her employer, the Florence Crittenton Adoption Agency in Lowell, Massachuseutts. According to the Federal prosecutor and investigators, the theft took place over eight years, from December 1998 through April 2006.

Natalie Fleury, who was employed as an office manager and bookkeeper, allegedly "altered checks the agency was issuing to a third-party vendor, made herself the payee, and deposited the checks into a joint checking account she shared with her husband.

Her husband, Thomas E. Fleury, Sr., also 60, who "allegedly also benefited from the proceeds of the fraud," also failed to report the illegal income on the couple's tax returns; he, like his wife, has consequently been indicted with five counts of tax evasion.

The Florence Crittenton Adoption Agency, a private agency located in Lowell, Massachusetts is celebrating its one hundredth anniversary this year. It places about 30 to 40 children per year through international adoption. The board of directors of the agency posted a press release on the Internet after the indictments were made public, part of which is quoted below:

"Today's action by the US Attorney's Office is the latest step in a process that began in April 2006 when a theft from the agency was first discovered. Since that time, this board has been working diligently to assist in the federal investigation; to put in place accounting safeguards to prevent future thefts; and to take whatever steps are necessary to recover the missing funds.

...The board of directors has implemented numerous safeguards to prevent any future theft through the misappropriation of agency funds. Those steps include new financial procedures, certified by an independent accounting expert, that include better oversight by multiple parties and duplicative sign-off on spending from only a single account. In addition, an executive board closely reviews monthly financial statements.

....It was perhaps our focus on families, and not finances, that provided the opportunity for this violation of trust

...We thank the US Attorney's Office and the US Postal Inspectors who answered our call for assistance and worked tirelessly and professionally in the pursuit of justice. We thank our families and our friends for their continued support as we navigate the agency through this difficult period."

The moral of the story...Money must be watched closely if it is not to have a life of its own apart from its original intended use. If it takes extreme diligence here in this country within a small agency to keep money where its supposed to be and working for its intended use, how much more difficult it is to keep money where its supposed to be and working for its original intended use--and not another--overseas with partner agencies and IA facilitators.

Desiree

Woman is accused of defrauding agency, The Boston Globe, 16 November 2007

Couple accused in fraud, tax evasion, Bostonherald.com, 16 November 2007

Chelmsford woman charged with stealing $600K from adoption charity, The Boston Globe, 15 November 2007

Statement from The Florence Crittenton Adoption Agency: ADOPTION AGENCY CARRIES ON DESPITE THEFT, ADOPTIONS UNAFFECTED; Press Release: Statement of the Board of Directors of the Florence Crittenton League Adoption Agency, November 2007

Friday, November 16, 2007

US Agency Investigated for Forgeries in Russian Adoptions

Children's Hope International is an adoption agency based in Missouri with offices in Missouri, Arizona, California, Illinois, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington that did over 700 international adoptions last year. It is being investigated by seven states after authorities discovered that two employees were allegedly forging official documents being sent to Russian authorities.

The forgeries were discovered in July, when authorities in Arkansas received correspondence from Russian adoption officials, seeking additional information. However, the adoption officials in Arkansas had no record of the initial correspondence that prompted the Russian letter.

A few days of research revealed that the letter from Arkansas was really mailed from the offices of Children's Hope International. A wide search was conducted, and eventually, Children's Hope International's director, Dwyatt Gantt, admitted that ten documents were forged, affecting 7 states.

However, during a meeting with Tennessee adoption authorities, Gant is quoted as saying the forgeries went on for years, and were "widespread."

--from KSDK Newschannel 5's online report

According a TV news report, two Children's Hope International employees who worked out of the Missouri office, Mareda Eckert and Sue Ellison, had allegedly been copying the official letterhead of authorities in several states, writing the documents that Russia required, and then forging the signatures of the appropriate state officials. The documents would then be sent to Russia as some of the official paperwork required to complete a Russian adoption. It is unclear if the improprieties also included the use of notarization on these documents. Dwyatt Gantt's official statement about the affair, printed on Children Hope International's website would seem to imply that it might. Gantt there states that "two employees...were found to have mishandled paperwork which included the wrong use of notaries."

According to news reports, the documents involved "were used to assure Russian authorities that any children sent here would be properly care for."

The alleged forgeries involved documents made to look like they had come from officials in Arkansas, Illinois, Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, Tennessee, and Texas.

Investigations in these states, some ongoing, have included hearings to determine whether CHI should lose its adoption license in these states and to determine whether criminal charges should be pursued.

The two Children's Hope International employees involved were fired a month after the alleged forgeries were discovered.

International Children's Hope Director Dwyatt Gantt has chosen to downplay the seriousness and significance of the forgeries. On a TV interview he stated that the alleged forgeries were, "foolish and misguided, but not malicious--not self serving on [the employees'] part."

In addition to Gant's official web-published statement, "A Message from Children's Hope International" on the affair, Children's Hope International has also sent out letters seeking to reassure current and former clients, and delineating what CHI had to done to alleviate the situation:

"As a result of Children's Hope being upfront and proactive, we have been assured by Missouri DFS and all states where investigations are complete, that we have handled this in the correct manner, and we have been ensured this will not adversely affect our work in these states."

He assures all that "this matter is already nearing resolution," stating that only two states have yet to put the matter to rest: Kansas and Illinois.

But according to news reports, things may not yet be as resolved as Gantt would have them be. In Missouri where CHI is based, a local TV station reports:

Missouri adoption regulators knew about the forgeries in August, after calls from other states. However, after an investigation, it was decided that Children's Hope International would not be sanctioned, and would keep its license.

Susan Shelton, a manager in the state Children's Division of the Missouri Department of Social Services, said on October 25, that police and prosecutors had not been contacted to investigate the forgery. However, on October 30, Shelton's bosses decided to contact police about the case.

That occurred after Missouri State Senator John Loudon, a Republican from Ballwin, started asking about what happened. Loudon is a long time adoption advocate, who is concerned that the forgeries could affect future adoptions of Russian children. Loudon wants a full investigation, and says Missouri must come clean with the Russians.

As for Russia....Russian authorities are already on edge with the American adoption of Russian children. Russians are concerned about:

A long string of cases in which Russian adoptees have suffered abuse and even death--14 Russian children killed to date--at the hands of American adoptive parents
The Masha Allen case in which a US adoption agency placed a Russian five year old with a pedophile and then failed to check up on her for nearly five years (fabricating one post placement report and doing another by phone) so that the child was abused for five years and became the unwilling "star" of illegal child pornography (Masha's photos are among the confiscated images in at least 50% of child pornography prosecutions).
The failure of many US adoption agencies to take seriously Russia's post adoption reporting requirements

Keeping Russia open to Americans for adoption has become an increasingly politically difficult and unpopular feat within Russia and the Russian government. This new problem can not help US-Russian adoption relations. But, so far at least, Russian authorities have restrained themselves:

Russian authorities are aware of the forgeries, but have not reacted in any way.

Perhaps they are waiting to see just how seriously America takes the corruption of adoption--whether we will see that wrongdoing is taken seriously and whether wrongdoers are investigated, sanctioned, and punished--all as a deterrent for future misconduct.

Or, instead, whether the aura surrounding international adoption will once again whitewash and downgrade all wrongdoing into an easily excused mush of well-meaning mistakes and oversights and sniveling explanations.....I mean really, it doesn't really make that much difference anyway, does it...I mean we're talking about saving orphans here....

What wouldn't be tolerated anywhere else and that would be stringently punished once again passes into relative insignificance in the glow of the absolute good that is adoption.

Would that those who excuse such indiscretions and corruption could see that each time such things are excused and passed over, it weakens international adoption further and makes clear that is it lacking in character, ethics, and accountability. International adoption will eventually be killed by such failing to take seriously these problems.

It will be a truly awful thing if Russian adoption closes because Americans refuse take adoption corruption seriously. If any children in the world are truly in need of adoption, it is the adoption eligible children languishing in Russian orphanages.

Desiree

Text:
Adoption Agency At Center Of Investigation; KDSK News Channel 5; St. Louis, Missouri; 13 November 2007

Video:
Adoption Agency At Center Of Investigation; KDSK News Channel 5; St. Louis, Missouri; 13 November 2007

Explanation from Children's Hope:
"A message from Children’s Hope Director," Dwyatt Gantt, 14 November 2007

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Council of Europe Urges Respect for Rights of Children and Refutes the "Right to a Child"

Last week the Council of Europe published the following press release:

PACE Social Affairs Committee Urges Respect for Children’s International Adoption Rights and Refutes the ‘Right to a Child’

Strasbourg, 8.11.2007 - “The point of international adoption is to enable a child to find parents, with respect for his or her rights, not to satisfy the parent’s wish to have a child at all costs: there is no such thing as the right to a child!” This was the conclusion reached today by Ruth-Gaby Vermot-Mangold (Switzerland, SOC), speaking on behalf of the Parliamentary Assembly (PACE) Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee, at a meeting of the committee in Paris.

In her report, which is based on fact-finding visits to Ukraine and Moldova, Mrs Vermot-Mangold firmly condemns the increasing use of alternative circuits that can encourage the disappearance of newborn babies for illegal adoption in Europe. She denounces the fully-fledged traffic in babies in Moldova, where 61 cases came before the criminal courts in 2006. In Ukraine the Rapporteur had noted cases of children disappearing at birth, with hospital administrators telling their mothers that they were stillborn, whereas in fact they are presumed to have been sold for adoption.

These practices of stealing and selling children, particularly newborn babies, have been facilitated by the lack of strict civil status regulations in some countries. The Committee said today when adopting Mrs Vermot-Mangold’s report on the disappearance of new-born babies for illegal adoption in Europe.

This is why the committee is calling for, at national level, the introduction of clear laws governing family rights and, at international level, a review of the Convention on Intercountry Adoption, bearing in mind the interests and rights of the child, in order to establish mechanisms for the strict control of adoption rules. “In the absence of national solutions, this will ensure a better life for quite a few children, and avoid situations such as recently occurred in Chad,” said Mrs Vermot-Mangold.

The report is due to be discussed by PACE at its winter session (21-25 January 2008).

Desiree

Council of Europe Press Release 761 (2007): PACE Social Affairs Committee urges respect for children’s international adoption rights and refutes the ‘right to a child’,Council of Europe Press Division, 8 November 2007

Sunday, November 11, 2007

India's Rules on Adoption Fees and Donations

A rule is only as good as it is enforced. What good is an adoption rule that is intended to curb child trafficking when that rule is not followed and when no government takes any action when the rule is regularly broken?

India’s Rules on Adoption Fees and Donations

CARA is the central authority in India that regulates intercountry adoptions from India. Since 2006, CARA’s guidelines contain two specific rules about adoption fees and donations:

(1) CAP ON FEES: In intercountry adoption, an adoption fee of a fixed amount of U.S. $3,500 is payable by prospective adoptive parents to the Indian placement agency through the U.S. agency. See Section 5.17(a) of CARA’s Guidelines.

This fee is an “outer limit” of recoverable expenses that may be reviewed for cost of living increases once every five years.

The recoverable expenses the fee is supposed to cover include the cost involved in providing quality child care, medical and legal services, passport, visa, payment towards professional staff, monitoring, correspondence, preparation of child study reports, medical reports, etc.

(2) NO DONATIONS: CARA’s rules are clear that no donation should be received by an Indian placement agency either from a foreign prospective adopted parent or from a foreign adoption agency. Section Section 5.17(b).

CARA’s Guidelines state that if the Indian Placement agency charges excess fees, CARA may suspend or withdraw its license to do intercountry adoption and may recommend the agency for criminal prosecution.

If the foreign adoption agency induces an Indian placement agency by offering more money than the prescribed fees, CARA may de-enlist that foreign agency with a recommendation that the agency be prosecuted as per the law of that country.

CARA’s guidelines with respect to the maximum permissible adoption fees and donations were derived from the India Supreme Court directives outlined in LK Pandey v. Union of India, 2 S.C.C. 244 (India Supreme Court 1984). The restrictions on fees and donations were formulated expressly to safeguard against the "profiteering and trafficking of children." See LK Pandey, 2 S.C.C. at 264, 270, 273. This objective also lies at the heart of the Hague Convention.

Earlier this year, CARA issued draft revised guidelines. It is expected that CARA will issue final rules effective January 1, 2008. In anticipation of the rules changing, this post records existing U.S. agency practice regarding fees and donations for India adoption programs.

U.S. Agency Practice

Set forth below is each of the U.S. agencies listed on CARA’s website that is currently licensed to place children from India that has information about its India program on its website (even if the India program is on hold). Linked to each agency name is the part of its website that discloses fees and donations for its India program (if any).

Agencies that do not publish fee information on its websites:

The following agencies do not publish information about its fees on their websites:

Love Basket

Children’s House International

Alliance for Children, Inc.

Hope Adoption & Family Services International, Inc.

Crossroads Adoption Services

Americans for International Aid and Adoption

Bal Jagat Children’s World Inc.

International Families Inc.

ACCEPT An Adoption and Counselling Centre

Children of the World, Inc. International Adoption and Relief Agency

The Barker Foundation

Commonwealth Adoptions International, Inc.

International Family Services

Hope Cottage, Inc.

Hope for Children

Wide Horizons for Children, Inc.

Agencies with published fee information on their websites:

The following CARA-licensed agencies contain information about fees on their websites:

Illien Adoptions International, Inc.

Lists a country fee of $9,000

Children’s Home Society & Family Services
India Program Fees consist of:

$3,500 for child care/maintenance/legal fees

$5,000 for “CARA approved and CHSFS approved International Child Welfare Projects”

Holt International Children’s Services

Adoption Program fee: $8,190.

Bay Area Adoption Services International Adoption

Lists partnering agency fees as ranging from $6,000-$10,000

Holy Cross Child Placement Agency, Inc.

India processing fee: $3,000 – $9,000 (varies based on Indian orphanages)

MAPS International

Indian foreign program fee: $4,500 (includes “orphanage donations”)

Journeys of the Heart Adoption Services

India Program Maintenance Fee -- $2,000

Contributions (Mandatory) -- $5,000. For “humanitarian relief projects which Journeys supports in India (paid to regulated non-profits for child nurturing, vocational training and such, i.e. Care and Share, or Hands to Hearts International.)”

Orphanage Fee (varies by orphanage) -- $2,500 - $3,500

Families Thru International Adoption

International Fees: $9,000. “Fees for child investigations, attorney, legal/court costs, recognized Indian placement agencies (orphanages) as allowed by CARA, passport, staff in India, maintenance of program, licensing, DHL, phone, fax, and assistance when families travel. FTIA provides support for welfare projects so that part of every international fee is a donation.”

World Association for Children & Parents (WACAP)
Lists no separate India program fee. Instead, total costs are:

Application fee: $250

Initial processing fee: $4,000

2nd processing fee: $4,000

Final adoption fee: $4,000

Adoptions from the Heart

In-country orphanage child maintenance process: $3,500

Support of child welfare programs: $3,500 (“This covers the donation to the Child Welfare Programs to support orphanages throughout the country.”). Preet Mandir, an orphanage in Pune India, is the only charity mission listed on this agency’s website.

Dillon International, Inc.

International Fee -- $3,500

Maintenance support fee -- $1,450

Children of India, Inc.

India Program Fee: Listed as $3,500 for non-resident Indians. Not published for non-NRIs. Website notes that some orphanages accept less than the CARA approved amount of $3,500.

Questions
The fee information described above raises a number of questions:

Why don't all agencies list fee information on their websites? Is there a “best practices” approach for transparency of fees charged by U.S. agencies?

Of the amounts of foreign fees in excess of $3,500, how much goes to Indian orphanages contrary to CARA guidelines?

Regardless of what is listed by a U.S. agency as its international, program or foreign fee, how much does the agency actually remit to its Indian partners (for example, do agencies remit amounts that come out of its own administrative portion of agency fees)?

Why do some U.S. agencies permit and in most cases require prospective adoptive parents to pay fees and donations that are prohibited by CARA guidelines?

Why is no action taken against Indian placement agencies or U.S. agencies for routinely violating CARA’s guidelines governing fees and donations?

Are there any U.S. agencies that can publicly account for the portion of adoption fees it charges that go to India? That go to any country?

Usha

Tuesday, November 06, 2007

Part I of Accountability to Families of Origin: Before Adoption: Protecting the Rights of Vulnerable Families--Workshop 1.2

The following are detailed notes. They do not constitute the exact words of the speakers, but a--hopefully accurate--summary of the ideas. If any of the panelists or attendees take issue with any of these summaries, please let me know so that I can correct them.

Because the notes on this Workshop were so lengthy, I divided the notes into separate posts. This post is the first of two from Workshop 1.2.

Desiree

Ethics and Accountability Conference
Sponsored by Ethica and Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute
October 15-16, 2007

Bullet points for discussion during this workshop:

Do current practices, even when handled carefully, create for some expecting women/couples, a sense of obligation to go forward with the adoption?
What are the most appropriate ways to cover expectant mothers' expenses so that risks of coercion or exploitation are minimized or eliminated?
What is the role of open adoption arrangements in planning for adoption? Should contact agreements be explored in all situations? Should they be enforceable?
Is it ethical to search out children to place for adoption and what role should professionals play in this endeavor?

Panelists:

Lynn Franklin is a birthmother who was reunited with her birthson, a book author, a current board member of the Evan B. Donaldson Institute, an eleven year board member of Spence-Chapin, and an elected “lifetime” Honorary Director of Spence-Chapin.

Sania Metzger is director of policy for Casey Family Services, the direct service agency of the Annie E. Casey Foundation. She works to influence and track policies at the local, state, and federal levels. Ms. Metzger is on the Board of Directors for Prevent Child Abuse America and the Center for Family Representation.

Dr. Teresa “Tesi” Kohlenberg M.D.is a child psychiatrist, who had previously worked as a developmental pediatrician with teenage mothers and the urban poor. She is an adoptive parent, a co-founder of Guatemala Adoptive Families Network which promotes ethical practices in Guatemalan adoption, and finally a contributor to various adoption books.

Annette Appell is a law professor who has authored multiple articles, books chapters, etc. on adoption. She serves on the editorial board of the Juvenile and Family Court Journal and the Adoption Quarterly, and has extensive experience representing representing children and parents involved with the child welfare system, including providing legal representation in termination of parental rights cases and adoption proceedings.

Lynn Franklin: Opening Remarks

As a society we have a responsibility to families who are at risk of becoming “families of origin”
- that responsibility is one of practice, not just of rhetoric
Ethics must include sensitivity to race & economic factors in both IA and domestic settings
I’ve heard a lot of stories, but one that sticks with me that is germaine to the current topic is this one: I had returned from Columbia and was telling a US "adoption professional" about conversations with birthmoms in Columbia, when the US adoption worker said in surprise::
- “Oh, I guess I haven’t thought of them [the Columbian birthmothers]like OUR birthmothers.”

Do we think of women in these (other) sending countries in a different light?
- Certainly many in private adoption don’t consider women in the public welfare system to be like “our birthmothers” either.
We really need address the cultural and economic forces that operate in all forms of adoption
The mother who relinquishes in Columbia isn’t fundamentally different from birthmothers in the private US system or the public welfare system.
The mission must be for providers to provide quality services.

Sania Metzger

There is a documented need for birthmothers from indigent families for legal representation in the Child Welfare System (CWS) process
- The TV show, Judging Amy, as good as it was, never had an episode that focused on inadequacy of legal representation of birthparents in the Child Welfare System (CWS)

Federal /State policies
- Mandate the termination of parental rights if the allegations/issues against the parent by CWS aren’t resolved
- The process to terminate parental rights is set into motion early in the process with CWS
- Yet these parents who are at risk for losing their parental rights are not given quality legal representation
- It’s a serious ethical issue that the statutes that threaten to take away parental rights do not also provide them with legal representation

Parent may face a termination of parental rights, but there is no balancing act to provide legal representation of parents who stand to their rights lose rights
- we value the process to sever rights
- but we don’t value a fair process or making sure that parents’ rights in the process are protected

There ought to be moral outrage at this situation,
- and yet we don’t see or hear it and that concerns me.

The American CWS process removes children from their families and promises to give them new ones
- Children who are abused and neglected enter the system,
- and move forward in a process that ultimately results in the severance of parental rights
- This system holds out the promise that these children will be adopted
- And yet many aren’t adopted

The American CWS severs parental rights and holds out the promise of new homes
- In 2002, there were129,000 legal orphans (children whose parents had had their parental rights severed) in the US system
- These kids become orphans through the Child Welfare System
  - Not because of wars, or natural disasters, or HIV, or other catastrophes
  - These kids are orphans because we severed parental rights
  - So that the kids could be adopted into families that legally speaking, could “better” care for them
- We terminate parental rights with the HOPE that children will be placed
- We say to their parents--sorry you can’t raise them, but it will be better for them because they will be raised in a loving family and have the things that children should have
- But we fail to come through for these kids
- Where is the court and child welfare accountability in this?

It is NOT good enough to hold out a promise to child or parent
- Plan to make sure child is raised in loving, caring family
- And then violate that mother’s trust; violate that family’s trust
- The child continues to languish; the child is not adopted

On an annual basis more than 22,000 children who have become orphans through the CWS system exit the system without ever having been given that promised permanence in their lives
- We are failing miserably to place children
- Failing miserably to fulfill promises to parents and children
- The birthparent failed to keep child, but now has to struggle with the painful reality that:
  - Her child not deemed worthy
  - Her child is not adoptable,
  - Her child was never embraced by another loving family.

We, especially those who understand the richness of adoption when it works as it should, should be feeling moral outrage that this is happening. That these children are failing to get homes and that our promises to these parents whose parental rights have been severed have not been kept. This is a serious moral and ethical issue.

WHO are these children/families that we are failing?
- Disproportionately they are people of color and poor people
- The same people who face/have faced historic and current discrimination; structural racism, ethnic discrimination, etc.
- Those involved in CWS processes are disproportionately the poor and persons of color
  - Those whose income is under $15,000 a year are 22 times more likely to be in CWS
  - These are indigent parents who can’t afford legal help
  - They should be getting quality legal representation from the time of the first knock at door of CPS
- Racism and ethnicity overlays WHO is in the system
  - Disproportionately includes those who have experienced historic stereotyping, marginalizing, under representation, and the undervaluation of their families
  - We undervalue families from certain racial and ethnic backgrounds
  - We SHOULD be paying special attention to these children—so they don’t automatically end up in the system

It is a symptom of the problem that we automatically consider children from these families, special needs children simply because of who they are.

Horrendous disproportionality in system
- Inequities begin at front end, but the disparities continue; the disproportionality continues throughout system and process
- Kids Count figures show that on one day--30 Sept 2006:
  - 15% of US kids were African American
  - Yet, 34% in US kids in the Child Welfare System were African American
  - 36% of children in CWS waiting to be adopted were African American
  - Only about 30% of those adopted are African American
- Likewise Native Americans are about 1% of population, 2% waiting of those waiting to be adopted, and only about 1% of those adopted who are adopted

We TALK about adoption and protecting needs of birthparents on front end, but we don’t challenge our ourselves enough
- We present a view of adoption that is one sided
- We separate out from our understanding of adoption and don't speak about the horrendous struggles that indigent birthparents face to contest termination of parental rights petitions from our understanding of adoption

Positive developments
- Several states have new legislation permitting children to petition the court to reinstate their parents' previously severed parental rights
- One of these states is California where legislation was the result of the Jared H case
  - Jared H was a 14 yo child whose mother was substance abuser, and he was deemed to be at risk for coming into the CWS system. In a preemptive move, Jared H asked that his stepfather be allowed to adopt him
  - As a precursor to the anticipated adoption, Jared's mother's parental rights were severed. But then the stepfather adoption was not allowed to take place because of “unsanitary conditions in the home.”(that is another issue for another day)
  - Jared H's wish to be raised in the loving family (that he had chosen) was aborted and he was inadvertently thrown into the foster care system where it is now likely that he will remain until he is emancipated (reaches legal adulthood)
  - Unfortunately, the court couldn’t undo the parental rights termination because it had no general legislated mandate to reinstate parental rights that had been severed.
  - The court, realizing the bad situation it was in, subsequently invited the CA legislature to create a law which would allow children to petition the court to reinstate parental rights (when it’s safe to do so).
    - The CA legislature responded with the 8519 legislation which allows for a child to bring a petition before the court to have his/her parental rights reinstated
    - This is an attempt to deal with creation of orphans in this country without the corresponding ability to place children in adoptive homes

Model programs for providing quality legal services to families who come into the CWS system
- Center for Family Representation, in NY City
  - Attorney working out of an office with an interdisciplinary staff
    - Parent advocate, paralegals, investigative staff, caseworkers, etc.
  - Contrast this with the usual legal representation (when it happens) of an attorney "working out of a briefcase" and often meeting his/her client for the first time in the courtroom
  - Better outcomes result because the representation begins earlier, often before petition is filed
  - Program has reduced numbers of kids who need to be removed from their homes
    - Of 51 cases handled by center, in 32 of them children were able to remain in the home or be reunited with parents shortly after the process began

Parent advocacy as a developing trend that I recommend that we support
- Team decision making that involves bringing parents to the table
- Parents SHOULD be there when important decisions are being made concerning their children
- Including parents shows respect for those in the system and those whose rights are at risk of being terminated
- We should be supportive of the rights of parents to maintain appropriate ties with their children as long as it's safe to do so

Tesi Kohlenberg
(Tesi provided a printed handout with bullet points which I am seeking permission to reprint on fleasbiting)

When my husband and I started the process to adopt from Guatemala, we spent a number of months researching the situation and we thought we knew what was going on in Guatemala with our adoption. We thought we'd be:
- adopting a child whose parent truly couldn’t care for her, parents who had truly and freely chosen adoption for their child
- a part of a system that was helping women
And to some degree we were

We had been in correspondence with Bruce Harris at Casa Alianzaand he had assured me that ethical adoption from Guatemala was possible
I knew a lot (from working with teen mothers in NY and Boston for 15 years) about the effects of chronic poverty, racism, substance abuse, and trauma on decision-making
I also knew something about the US role in Guatemala’s 36 year civil war and the genocidal attacks on the native Maya, and the effects these things might have had on the people who would be the parents of my child
I had some doubts, but preadoptive parent hope and longing tended to override those doubts
In the past 8 years I have learned a lot more

The more I learn, the more race, culture, and class stand out as the key issues behind ethical problems in adoption both domestically and internationally—the same issues play in both
Our relationship with my daughter’s birthmother has put my mind to rest to some degree
But I also know too many people whose adoptive children were stolen or sold or whose children’s first mothers were coerced into relinquishing
The shadow of this fact falls on all of us adoptive parents even if we know that our own adoptions were relatively clean
Ethical issues in IA are the same ones as in domestic adoption, only more so. -
- The disparities--the power differential issues--are worse in IA than domestically
- Relinquishing families in IA are most often poor,illiterate,and disenfranchised
- Desperate poverty leads people to do truly desperate things
  - The level of desperation distinguishes poor people in other countries from people in this country. This has to be acknowledged.
In most IA sending countries:
- The rule of law is weak
- Families have little recourse if they are victims of unethical adoption practice
- Many families may face retribution if they do report crimes
In most traditional sending country societies, orphanages are traditionally a part of a temporary care system (Vietnam, Cambodia, India)
- Families place their children temporarily and some return to find that their children have been adopted out overseas
Many sending countries are recovering from war—often wars financed by the US
- Traditional cultural structures that might have been called upon to support families under stress have been eroded and compromised
What rights are we talking about? Basic human rights, such as:
- Food, housing, healthcare, work,
- Freedom from an atmosphere of war, persecution, and violence
- Civil rights; equality across racial, gender, class, caste, etc.
  - Not achieved here, but significantly worse in sending countries
- Access to supports for vulnerable populations are often nonexistent in many sending countries
  - Access to a functioning justice system for remediation should something bad happen
- Psychological rights in adoption: the rights to connection, belonging, continuity,identity, recognition by society of your value, ability of adopted persons to have access to their families of origin when it makes sense
- The most basic human rights for children as enumerated in the Convention on the rights of the Child

There are big questions about how these rights play out in international adoption
- Do we believe that women in poor countries have the same rights of choice over what happens to their children as are given to them in developed nations?
- Do we believe that nations have rights—almost property rights of a sort—in their children that supercede a woman’s right to decide where her child grows up?
- How meaningful are our ideas of the rights of families for families living in a different cultural context in which they don’t have access to the most basic civil human rights?
- Can we or should insist on those rights when they are not culturally understood and can we asked that they be enacted between persons who are interacting in a culture different than our own?
- Can we ascribe these rights to people who are fundamentally powerless?
These are issues to think about—I don’t have easy answers—only questions.

A story about powerlessness and cultural disconnect: When we went to Guatemala to meet our daughter’s family (after we had pushed consistently to be able to do so)we finally met with the mother and mother’s sister—-We asked her, "What would you like us to tell our daughter when she is older about why you chose adoption for her?"
- My daughter's Guatemalan birthmother looked straight at me and at my white husband who is 6 ft 3 and blond (and who looks like a kindly Viking),and said that she hoped the girl would never need to know that she was adopted.
Guatemala is in crisis. There are not enough publicly funded orphanages in Guatemala. Most orphanages are privately funded. There is some domestic adoption. Domestic adoption in Guatemala is private, informal, and easy, but it can’t provide for all the children who need help. Private orphanages and the private relinquishment system (funneling children into IA)handles the vast majority of cases.
- The strengths of a private relinquishment system are:
  - Maternal choice
  - Excellent foster care
  - Babies finding homes relatively quickly at young ages
- The Problems with a private relinquishment system are:
  - It's very vulnerable to corruption
  - It's very vulnerable to develop unethical and illegal practices
- Many of us are in agony about this
The situation is this: There is a rapidly increasing demand for adoptable newborn babies and so
- A class of baby finders has sprung up who are paid a great deal to locate babies
- Finders are paid between $6,000 and $10,000 per baby
- And so they produce, find, or locate babies for adoption
- In a significant nontrivial proportion of the cases, the finders are paying a portion of that finder’s fee to Guatemalan parents to relinquish their children (payments are at initial relinquishment and final signature)
  - Parents are being paid anywhere from a few hundred dollars up to $3,000 to relinquish their children
  - In a country where a third of the population lives on $2 a day or less, this is money to provide a powerful incentive for relinquishment

Guatemala is unusual in IA because contact between adoptive and first families is possible, although it is often discouraged and sabotaged by the Guatemalan adoption attorneys
- AP’s who make contact with Guatemalan birthfamilies, and there are something on the order of 500 of us now, usually find that adoption is truly what the first mothers chose for their children. They felt it was what was needed and what was best for the child. This fact is really important to note in the context of these other stories which follow. We are finding that:
  - Some women were coerced to relinquish by their male partners
  - Some women are also often coerced by adoption workers (I will NOT call them “adoption professionals”)
  - Some extended families would have wanted to parent the child but were not given the option by the mother
  - Some Guatemalan women are even getting pregnant repeatedly in order to earn a living selling by selling their babies
  - There is some involvement in adoption by gangs that run guns and drugs
  - There are reliable reports that women who change their minds during the waiting period are told that they must pay back the monetary costs of childcare for their child during the waiting period and also any money they had been previously given (which is illegal) and because they don't have the money, are not getting their babies back
- NO one is sure how widespread these problems are
  - But the US Embassy says these problems are “frequent”
- No one knows whether of those mothers who receive money at relinquishment--the money was the reason they relinquished their children or whether the money simply represented something good that happened to them in the midst of tragedy
  - And as for money, Guatemalans have often said, "Why does everyone else get money and the mother doesn’t?" I have my own answer as to why they shouldn’t, but I understand the psychology behind the question.
The crisis in Guatemala right now has its roots
- In seriously unethical practices,
- The intransigence and denial of agencies (and their representatives in Guatemala) that have steadfastly denied that there has ever been an ethical problem
- The polarization of the dialogue in which both UNICEF and Casa Alienza have played a role by painting an extreme and unrealistic pictures of what is going on in Guatemala
Solutions that are being looked at now are politically attractive in the abstract, but are likely to close the country to IA in practice
Adoption has become a business bringing powerful amounts of money into poor countries.
- If adoption funds leak into excess profits, unethical practice can practically be guaranteed.
  - Even in China where there is less structural vulnerability than in Guatemala, we are learning of adoption corruption and child abduction.
This all can not be stopped without bringing about profound social changes beyond the scope of this panel. In terms of vulnerable families, we can not protect them without first ensuring the rights of families to survival and social justice
We need to be working hard to minimize the need for international adoption.
- The steps I recommend to work towards this are laid out in the handout.
However, until social justice and human rights are addressed, the right of a child to grow up in a stable and loving family must still be honored and set higher than abstractions about systems.
- For this to happen ethically in countries beset by poverty and corruption, we and our adoption representatives will have to be very careful indeed.

To read notes from the rest of this session see Part II of Accountability to Families of Origin: Before Adoption: Protecting the Rights of Vulnerable Families of Origin--Workshop 1.2

Desiree

Part 2 of Accountability to Families of Origin: Before Adoption: Protecting the Rights of Vulnerable Families of Origin--Workshop 1.2

The following are detailed notes. They do not constitute the exact words of the speakers, but a--hopefully accurate--summary of the ideas of these presentations and questions. If any of the panelists or attendees take issue with any of these summaries, please let me know so that I can correct them.

Because the notes on this Workshop were so lengthy, I divided the notes into separate posts. This post is the second of two from Workshop 1.2.

Desiree

Ethics and Accountability Conference
Sponsored by Ethica and Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute
October 15-16, 2007

Bullet points for discussion during this workshop:

Do current practices, even when handled carefully, create for some expecting women/couples, a sense of obligation to go forward with the adoption?
What are the most appropriate ways to cover expectant mothers' expenses so that risks of coercion or exploitation are minimized or eliminated?
What is the role of open adoption arrangements in planning for adoption? Should contact agreements be explored in all situations? Should they be enforceable?
Is it ethical to search out children to place for adoption and what role should professionals play in this endeavor?

BTW, germane to Sania Metzer's topic: Nevada has just passed a law that allows children to petition to reinstate their parent’s parental rights.
My topic is: Domestic legally enforceable post adoption contracts
- What they are, what their characteristics are
- Why enacted and what people who deal with them say about them
Legally enforceable post adoption contracts
- Seem to be under the radar--even adoption workers don't know much about them
- New development in adoption law
- First statute was in 1990 and now 20 states have statutes that allow some form of post adoption contact that is enforceable
- Allow birthrelatives and parents to enter into a post adoption contact agreement prior to the adoption
- These agreements have the possiblity for modification in a court of law by either party after the adoption
- They are also enforceable by a court of law
- But they can never provide grounds for the termination of the adoption

These are called adoption contact agreements (ACA) and the legislation that enables them, adoption contact statutes (ACS)
- Adoption contact is good name because this is exactly what these legal documents facilitate
- Contact agreement is part of the adoption itself in most states
- These legal documents are incorporated directly into the adoption decree or else referred to in the adoption decree itself
- Statutes appear to have been adopted to protect adoptees’ interest in openness and to provide guidelines and formality to something that is already happening which is open adoption by agreement between birthparents and adoptive parents
- The idea was to make clear by statute what was enforceable and what was not enforceable
  - The truth is that there are many adoption lawyers who don’t understand what the effect of an agreement is between a birthfamily and an adoptive family
  - The odds are that unless an open adoption agreement is made in a state in which there is one of these adoption contact statutes, that the open adoption agreement is not enforceable by law

There are now at least 20 states with adoption contact statutes
- They vary from state to state, but many are almost identical in many respects
- By definition, these contracts can not be entered into unless the adoptive parents agree
- Each statute indicates who must approve of the agreement in order for it to enforceable later
- There is chart provided in the conference CD’s that analyses the provisions in various state ACS's (fleasbiting will try to get permission to reprint the chart here)
- All but 1 require agreements to be in writing—as a contract, a part of the relinquishment, or the court order
- All provide for enforcement of the agreement unless there are grounds not to enforce them or grounds to modify
- None provide for a vacation for the adoption or relinquishment for a breach in the agreement
- Statutes vary as which adoptions these are available for, who may have contact, and what the grounds for breach or modification are
- 13 of 20 apply to all adoptees, 4 restrict contact to kids in foster care, 1 restricts them to step parent adoption, 2 require that children have a “significant attachment to the birthparent” to apply
- All permit birthparent contact but some restrict its application to those who voluntarily relinquish children, but in some states if parental rights are terminated they can’t be a part of this provision (another goofy thing)
- Some statutes allow other relatives to be included, like siblings, extended family (a good thing)
- Most require court approval of the agreement
- Most include enforcement standard as to when it is and isn’t enforceable, can be modified, etc.
- Some provide that the “best interest of the child”—not my favorite legal statement as it is vague--standard must be applied to all modifications and enforcement
- The better ones are those that require a chance in circumstances, agreement of parties, etc. in order for the agreement to be modified
- Some statutes require that the placing agency approve the post adoption contact
- Some require mediation between parties before modification can be added or enforcement provisions of the statute kick in
The preceding is the "black letter law" of these agreements; there is to date no litigation arising out of these particular agreements; but there is one case percolating in CA
It is amazing that there are no social scientists studying these agreements
The speaker did a survey of 17 of these states in order to find out why these had been enacted, what was going on to bring them to be enacted, etc.
- I contacted 3 people in each state: these included various state officials, child welfare workers, adoption workers, someone representative of parents, and/or adoption attorneys
- I found that the child welfare public sector was behind the statute in most states, pushed to get it enacted
- Most said they did not know what the original/primary push was for these statutes, although most said that that they guessed that the child’s interest in open adoption was a prime motivating factor, as well as the rise of open adoption with post adoption agreements which had no legal clarity as to what they meant and what was or wasn't enforceable
- It was surprising to me how very little internal infrastructure has developed around these statutes, in terms of training, publicity, and formal mechanisms to provide for entry into these agreements and for problems that might arise out of them, etc.
  - California and Oregon are the only ones different in this regard; these states actually have booklets describing adoption contact agreements and these booklets and information is encorporated into permanency mediations or permanency planning sessions in those states
- No one I talked to was aware of anyone collecting data on how frequently ACA's were being filed or on how these agreements are working for those involved
- Sources I talked to led me to believe that states seem to vary in regard to how frequently these adoption contact agreements were being used;
  - Most of those I talked to felt that adoptions might be increasing because of these contact agreements
  - Most also felt that contested appeals and contested terminations were down in the states where ACS's had been enacted--so they seemed to be reducing mid-process litigation
Concerns for implementation of these adoptive contact statutes included:
- The fear that adoptive parents would be hauled into court
- The fear that adoptive parents wouldn’t be able to adopt without being forced to enter into these kinds of agreements (that coercive thing)
- Concern about whether birthparents would really be able to enforce ACA's
  - As we saw earlier, brithparents already have problems with access to justice and the legal system; How would they find an affordable attorney to press their cause in this situation?
  - It is not always clear how ACA's will be enforced;
  - If they have to file a cause of action to have the contract enforced there would be are fees—can birthparents afford these court fees, etc.
Do these ACA's really have any teeth at all down the road?
There was also the concern that these ACA's not be used as settlement tools
- Agreements should be entered into for the best interest of the child and not for the needs of the various adults involved—though it’s hard to separate those out sometimes

Basic questions we might ask are:
- Do these agreements add any value to adoption? Or open adoption?
- Are they enforceable? Costs and benefits?
- What safeguards can be put into place with open or informal adoption, primarily for birthfamilies, for children, for AP’s

Questions:

Question 1: For the states that have these legally enforceable post adoption contact agreements—what sanctions are in place if someone breaks the contract?

Appell: There are no sanctions. There is no way to enforce these agreements except to have the court say that the contract is enforceable and order that it be followed; and then, of course, you would have the sanctions of a court order not being followed--contempt of court.

Question 2: AP’s who have adopted from Guatemala come to me. They are in contact with their child’s Guatemalan birthfamily. The family is quite poor and lives in a village without clean water, etc. The adoptive family is in a position to provide these things to the village but are concerned about the ripple effects--the ethical issues--it will have on other families living in the village. Will intervening in that community cause the perception that they are encouraging/incentivizing other families to place their children for adoption?

Kohlenberg: The rate of adoptive family involvement on that level with birth families is still very small, though significant, and it has not created an expectation among Guatemalan families of support. The upside is that if the help is post adoption and is directed at a group rather than individuals, then it is not a quid pro quo. All of us have been careful not to make any kind of commitment or hint of help before the finalization of our adoptions. We who are involved thus talk about the impact that gifts have on quality of our relationships and the view of people there (in Guatemala) who assume that all of us are wealthy. The power and wealth differential complicates things.

Question 3: Can you address bullet #2 for this session which states: "What are the most appropriate ways to cover expectant mothers' expenses so that risks of coercion or exploitation are minimized or eliminated?

Kohlenberg: I’m not sure in an international context where you’re talking about people who are living on a few dollars a day, that it is possible to cover birthparent expenses without providing an incentive for relinquishment. It is a real conundrum without elegant answers.

Franklin: Audience?

Social worker from audience: IA and domestic are different, but even within domestic adoption things are different from state to state. There are 50 ways of doing things because each state is different. Some states have more vulnerable than others, some states have birthparents with more rights, etc. I think it is time for us to move forward with some national solutions. Until that happens we've got a real problem about how we are going to take care of the expenses of birthfamilies.

Joan Hollinger: I am a 15 year veteran of futile efforts to acheive uniformity in adoption laws, I sympathize with your plea for uniformity and national standards for expenses for birthparents. I don't think it's about to happen. Although perhaps it should. Although always the price for uniformity tends to be a move towards the lowest common denominator. It's often a much higher price when you balance it with a diversity from one state to another. Because some states really get it, but many don't. We have to balance uniformity with diversity.

On the expenses question, let me report to you that on the just issued interim rules from the Department of Homeland Security on the actual processing of immigration petitions and VISA applications in Hague countries (The Hague is, of course, still a hope; but the promise is now that the Hague will be up and running sometime in 2008), they actually try to address the question of distinguishing between the convention's prohibition on unlawful financial gain, exploitation and the like... and reasonable compensation on the other--and they do suggest that the standards for compensation should be related to the country in which the expenses are being incurred. This is an attempt at contextualizing and avoiding excess. They actually do give a working list of allowabale expenses--which is ironically taken from this proposed Uniform Adoption Act and therefore may not make much sense in other countries...but is an interesting starting point.

Having to do with the ability to request that AP's pay for their own travel expenses, their own homestudy expenses, their administrative costs, and legal fees and the like, but also to permit either contributions to or reimbursement of birthrelated expenses and childcare expenses. And those don't necessarily have to be child specific, but can be child general. I think that is a postitive direction. To avoid pitfalls to which you are so incredibly sensitive. That is, you don't want money going to a particular family prefinalization or post finalization. And you certainly don't want an expectation that the water supply will be cleaned up by the Smiths who took one child from this particular village. On the other side, making a commitment to developing a "custom of the trade" where it was understood and expected that prospective adoptive parents would make contributions that would be used for childcare, prenatal expenses, early infant care, and some recovery expenses of biological families without it being tied to a particular family. I favor that and don't think it's unethical or raises as many ethical problems as the underhanded deals.

Question 3: Sania Metzger to Joan Hollinger: In your attempt to develop uniform adoption standards, did you also consider the need for ensuring the need for representation for prospective birthparents?

Joan Hollinger: Absolutely. One of the concerns I've had domestically is how infrequently birthparents are represented in their dealings with private agencies. This is a question about domestic adoption. It is a question about how infrequently birthparents have legal representation in their dealings with private agencies. And the private agencies, which have historically been very negative about the role of lawyers in this whole system, I think, fail to acknowledge their own conflict of interests in a lot of domestic adoptions. They are representing both birthparents and adoptive parents. Biological parents are often not aware that they do have a legal right--that they should have independent representation in a relinquishment to a private agency. These national standards did propose all of that. But is easy to write model legislation--not so easy to get it passed and implemented.

Question 4: From Claudia Corrigan D’Arcy of Musings of the Lame, a domestic mother who lost her child to adoption 20 years ago: As far as expenses for expectant parents, expenses need to be taken out of the equation completely—expenses for expectant parents need not to come from agencies; they need not to come from PAP’s; they just need to come from somewhere else. It's a fault of our society that we don’t have a society that honors the mother/child bond; a society that doesn’t give women who have a lack of resources, the support they need to make a decision, a decision really based on what their feelings are--not just based on--"oh they're going to give me this or that." Adoption turns out to be the solution to these problems—the happy one that makes things feel good temporarily, but not feel good in the long run.

Lynn Franklin:Which goes to the point of what we were talking about with coersion...

Claude: Oh, it’s totally coercive. The combination of putting the expectant parents together--the relationship between expectant parents and the PAP parents, etc...

Lynn Franklin: Some places try to attract expectant mothers to come to facilities with all the amenities or come to another state.

Claude: To take you away from your family, to the people who look down on you and put you in a little cocoon.

We need to separate the money, and the decision--separate it out--the expectant parent resources here and adoption there. They need to be separated by a great divide. They can’t be related to each other. If we separate out the money and resources from the decision, the money and resources do appear.

Question 5: From an adoption agency worker: We are a small/medium sized agency that does both domestic and IA placements and we don’t ask for money for expectant mother expenses from PAP’s. There are typically plenty of resources out there for expectant moms, and as good social workers we should be able to tap into them. We don’t need to be asking for birthmother expenses at all. We’ve never had to spend much of our own money. But when we do spend our own money for these expenses, it’s a cost of doing business—it's part of a service and does not and should not come from PAP’s. If a small agency can do that, anyone can. As far as IA is concerned--the finders’ fees in Guatemala, is an issue that needs to be addressed, but I also think that when we say that the finder gets that $6000 to $10,000 per case, that is not exactly accurate. We have to consider how many bio mothers the finder had to work with to find that one child—did she work with 20 to find one or how many? It's a huge lack of transparency but, I don’t think we can say--Oh, she got $6,000 or $10,000 per child. That’s not completely accurate. We have to look at the context of these numbers too.

Kohlenberg: I get your point, but OTOH--and there are several other hands--6 to 10 thousand dollars is a enormous—a huge—amount of money and there is really no way to do that calculus that makes me happy. It makes more sense to have women in need have access to independent people who are NOT involved in the business of adoption who can direct them to services. The complex question is that women who have agreed to relinquish ahead of time get access to a level of prenatal and birth care that is not generally available to the general population of poor people in Guatemala or in other countries. Even that is an issue. Whether you call that finder’s fee $6 or $10 or $3 thousand dollars, it is out of control and it has to stop.

Questioner: Yes, I agree. $3600/$3500 as a cap in Guatemala as a solution is dead in the water. Another issue that is appalling is that agencies are actually supposed to counsel birthmothers. There should be a division there. An important question is one that asks whether adoption agencies should be allowed to counsel expectant mothers at all. We have looked at other options as an agency—the possibility of referring to outside counselors--to CARENET or others. We shouldn't be doing the counseling because we stand to benefit financially when an adoption plan is made. I think that is a terrible conflict of interest that should be stopped completely.

Question 6: From Suz Bednarz of Wrong My Wrongs I affirm and validate what Claudia says. To have agencies involved in the crisis is coercion. Expenses? None should be given. Yes, that is drastic. I agree that agencies and PAP’s have to be taken out of the equation. I say this as a mom who lost her child to adoption in 1986 under threat of a promissory note. They actually had my parents sign a promissory note when I was in the maternity home for 6 months. When I tried to change my mind and keep my baby, they actually threatened to sue me and my parents for all of the fees for the care that they had provided me. Actually, I had been in the home, but I was working while in the home, and so I shouldn’t have owed them anything. I say this by way of saying that the adoption industry uses finances as another thing to hold over your head in order to get your baby—promissory notes, threats of lawsuits, and things other than cash.

Question 7: From David K of The Adoption Agency Checklist: Adoption is mostly international and interstate, and doesn’t usually stay within states. States have proven to be ineffective regulators. They either don't have the regulations on the books or else they don't have the will to enforce them. Joan Hollinger has said that when we look to have Federal regulations, we end up with the lowest common denominator; but she also said that there were states that do "get it." Why can’t everyone in the reform community benchmark the states that do "get it" and make that the goal of Federal legislation--and we all get behind it?

Appell: Federal regulation... The question is who will make the uniform laws because the Feds won’t regulate here. Fortunately or unfortunately. It's the way laws are made that is at fault. This organization--theNational Conference of Commissioners of Uniform Laws may help here.

David K: In the post Masha Allen hearings, you may have a Federal government that is more inclined to regulate.

Lynn Franklin:Acting as Moderator who wants to return the conversation to the bullet points that have not yet been explored in the midst of a discussion that is clearly going elsewhere: We want to talk about the role of open adoption agreements, but we haven’t yet talked about open adoptions...

Suz Bednarz: I want to add one more comment on expenses. In terms of supplying expense money for expectant mothers, the first place we ought to go is back to the families—the mother’s family, the father’s family, the extended family—and hold them accountable. And only then when they can’t help, should we go beyond them to look for help elsewhere. By forcing extended families (in the domestic context)to get involved, you are forcing them to deal with the situation—instead of giving them an easy out by having them send the mother away or getting an agency involved. You put the family into crisis mode instead of doing intervention, and you get the family involved. It lends itself to preserving the family.

Metzger: What Suz says points again to the urgent need to reform our child welfare financing programs. We know that the overwhelming amount of money--close to $6 billion annually--is available for “out of home placements.” Yet only 11% of that amount is available to "shore up" families on the front end--to preserve families and keep adoption from being necessary.

As a society we are making political decisions that do not work to preserve families, but, in fact, are working against them. As a society we make decisions to not preserve the family and opt instead for adoption.

We should want to maintain family integrity. Finances need to be made readily available so that when adoption decisions are made, they are not made out of financial necessity. The finances need to be available in individual situations to preserve families.

Question 8: We appreciate the birthmother comments. I’m Concerned about Guatemala and the global situation. If we can’t come together as a nation and determine adoption standards and strategies that are uniform and work in OUR country, how could we possibly hope to do so in a wider international context? Or in the Hague? We know the kinds of adoption related situations in which people have been vulnerable for years... and yet, they still exist. We have to clean our own house and come together on standards. This is important. This is a human rights issue. We can’t have 50 states doing 50 different things. And we think that we have best practices? And we think that we can inform other countries on what THEY should do?

Alexandra Yuster of UNICEFAll of this is the reason that it is interesting to consider IA and domestic adoption together. I want to respond to the points that Joan made as to the appropriateness of using some of the fees paid for IA for before adoption expenses and other projects in the birthfamily communities.

On that I’d like to issue a big caution.

If you funnel money into the community through the adoption system rather than through the child welfare system, then you are privileging and promoting that aspect--the adoption aspect--of the child welfare system. You are giving money to support the bureaucracy that supports the movement of children into intercountry adoption and out of their home countries, rather than into solutions that are in-country--like domestic adoption.

You are using your money on things other building than the child welfare system to keep kids from coming into the adoption system in the first place.

We need to have a discussion about how fees should be used and about how fees can be lowered. A discussion about how can adoptive families can contribute to welfare of birth families and their communities and contribute to ALL options for children, not just one solution--the international adoption one.

Franklin: In other words, when money comes into the child welfare system through adoption, then that money is used to maintain the institutions to do with adoption, rather than to promote the infrastructure that would prevent children from coming into non-family care in the first place.

Question 9: I worked in Child welfare for a long time—over 20 years--and now I work with Headstart. In this new position, I can get into the homes before the problems happen. I now work one on one with moms. I have been working 2 years with some moms at high risk for losing their children. I have been to Guatemala and the difference is amazing. We are putting lots of money into helping those in America, but we are still failing to keep our own kids out of the foster care system. It will take even longer to make progress in a place like Guatemala. To be able to get anywhere near what America has, it will mean these Guatemalan kids will be 28 or 29. Can we have a series of doable steps? What can we do in 1 year, 2 years, or whatever....

Question 10: Kevin Kreutner of Guatadopt.com: I am an AP. We contribute into the system; we all want to see the fees go down. But to try to say that somehow by us, by the fees that we pay, by that going to support the biological mothers, to ensure that they have appropriate prenatal and postnatal care--that that is somehow a negative thing... to me just seems wrong--in fact it seems and I apologize for the word choice, but it seems “assinine”. To suggest that this is something that is wrong--that these women are able to receive prenatal care.... If you don't have this, if these women do not receive care there will be more children being born unhealthy and not receiving the care that they need. It seems that it is good that women receive prenatal care to help head off trouble. Without it more children will be born with more problems. And I'll be the first to admit that I try to be a globalist--I try to look beyond national bounds--we adopted from another country and I don't think the domestic versus international is as big of an issue as is ensuring permanency, happiness, a loving environment, and all those things in the CRC [Convention on the Rights of the Child]. I just really can't understand the debate and I've read it from the [???] report and other reports. How can it be wrong to provide prenatal care to ANY woman who needs it?

Kohlenberg: What comes from what pot? AP’s say if I had taken the $27,000 that we had spent to adopt and given it to an aid agency in Guatemala, I could have affected the lives of 200 families for 10 years or whatever--pick your number. Not a real thing. People don’t give. It doesn’t work that way. I understand the point of thinking that funding taken off the top could be applied more broadly--that idea has an appeal to me. I agree with Kevin that providing basic services to anyone is hard to argue with--especially where those services are the difference between survival and not.

But it's also true that in some situations these services do incentivise an interaction. That is a problem.

But OTOH, part of my concern about the UNICEF gestalt is that we go for an ideal world and in the meantime we don't do anything messy... But we are a long way from an ideal world here. And children in families that we know and love--not just the ones that live in our homes, but the ones we know in our extended family in Guatemala--are facing problems. And they can't wait for the revolution.

Question 10: From Desiree Smolin of Fleasbiting:I am the parent of children who were basically stolen from their birthfamily. There was a finder paid to find them. There was a lot of money involved. I guess when it comes to this workshop, one of the titles is "vulnerable families." There is nobody protecting the families. When you've put lots of money into a country that is very poor and you have people who are very motivated to find chidlren, they go out to the villages and they find children. They look for the vulnerable families. They step in and they make them dependent, and then they take the children. So my question is, as long as there's money involved--and there's a lot of money--and there's no one protecting the family, they are going to be taking the children. Who is watching the agencies? Who is watching those who are in the middle between the birthfamilies and the adoptive families? Because everybody gets hurt if there nobody watching those in the middle. I mean we did find our children's birthfamily, they were reunited, but there's no justice in it. Anywhere. As long as there is money involved there has to be somebody watching. And as far as the money, all the laws in the world won't do anything, if there's nobody enforcing the laws. India has a $3500 limit on how much money can go into India with an intercountry adoption. Right now--I know someone who wrote to an agency and asked how much money would be paid to India for an intercountry adoption and they were told it would $11,000. And $3500 is the limit! They are breaking the laws. And there is nobody--NOBODY--watching. They are getting away with it. There is nobody watching.

Desiree

Why These Fleas Bite

Desiree: In 1998 my husband David and I adopted a sibling group of two older girls from India.

Within six weeks of their arrival, our new daughters, who were severely emotionally traumatized, told us they had been stolen from their birthfamily.

For six long and difficult years, our agency, though asked to do so repeatedly, failed to investigate our daughters allegations.

Finally, on our own with the help of an Indian activist for the poor, we found our daughters' birthfamily and confirmed their disturbing story.

Despite all this there has yet to be so much as an apology from our agency, and certainly no justice. Not for our daughters. Not for our daughters' first parents. Not for ourselves.

It seems that NO ONE CARES about this crime.

Our US agency--which has not disputed the facts of the case--says that it bears no legal responsibility even if, like we say, they helped place stolen children in our home.

Our pleas to both the Indian and US governments have fallen on what appears to be deaf ears, and therefore, we assume, uncaring ears. The state office which licenses our agency has a phone machine for complaints; apparently they do not return phone calls--at least ours was never returned.

Meanwhile, the Indian orphanage director has been jailed three times on child trafficking related charges. He is currently trying to be relicensed yet again.

We have been left to ask the questions:

1) How could this have happened? Was our case simply a rare happenstance or could there be specific flaws--specific or systemic--in the system that have allowed/caused it to happen?

2) Why is it that no one cares about this kind of crime?

This blog represents some of the answers we've found to these questions. It also is shares the ongoing answers as we continue to learn.

Flea bites are simply individual incidents of exposing the reality of international adoption practices--one example, one practice, one analysis, one real-life experience, one proposed remedy, and one "big picture" at a time.

If our insignificant flea bites can save other families the extreme pain that our daughters, our daughters' first family, and our own family have endured, these flea bites will not be in vain.

To find out more about Desiree's family's adoption follow the following link. NPR's" Adoption in America Series: An Adoption Gone Wrong, July 24, 2007

Usha: When I adopted from India not that many years ago, I was ignorant about the adoption landscape.

I believed the adoption myth that adoption agencies are basically trustworthy and that with all the hoops adopters must jump through, there are sufficient checks and balances to ensure that adoptions are ethical.

After adopting, I began participating in the adoption community.

My eyes were opened by the racist attitudes and beliefs I observed in fellow adopters from India. I couldn't believe the dim view I saw many take of my children's country of birth, my own country of origin.

Where were the checks to ensure that children were adopted into non-racist families? Later, my eyes opened wider when I learned about scndal after scandal with the recurrent themes of: getting children "out," agencies willing to look the other way, laws that are good on paper, but that are not enforced and individuals advocating for reform simplistically painted as evil and "anti-adoption."

First, I thought adoption corruption was primarily specific to India. It didn't take long, however, to become aware of how pervasive adoption corruption is.

With that knowledge came a sense of obligation that as a participant in the system: no matter how unwitting, I owe it to my children to advocate for reform

Favorite Corruption Quotes

"It takes a certain level of arrogance, greed, and defiance to deal children for money"

--indirect quote attributed (by a reporter) to officials investigating the FOC Samoan case

"Smuggling human beings into the US for money is one of the most egreigious exploitations of our nation's immigration system."

--an official at the press conference announcing the indictment of FOC on Samoan adoption related charges

"What begins as fraudulent rarely can be legitimized."

--the US attorney speaking of the Samoan adoption cases

"We all have an intense need to know. And the strongest human force on Earth is a parent searching for their disappeared child."

--Eric Stover, director, Berkeley's Human Rights Center, speaking on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, 02/15/07

“Justice will not come to Athens until those who are not injured are as indignant as those who are injured”

--Thucydides, Ancient Greek historians and author, 460-404bc

“The more I learn, the more race, culture, and class stand out as the key issues behind ethical problems in adoption, domestically and internationally—the same issues are at play in both"
”

--Tesi Kohlenberg, Adoptive Parent

"Sending" Country Parent and Community Voices

Books by Adult Adoptees

A Single Square Picture: A Korean Adoptee's Search for Her Roots by Katy Robinson
Even Tough Girls Wear Tutus: Inside the World of a Woman Born in Prison by Deborah Jiang Stein
Fugitive Visions, An Adoptee's Return to Korea by Jane Jeong Trenka
Identical Strangers, A Memoir of Twins Separated and Reunited by Elyse Schein and Paula Bernstein
Lucky Girl by Mei-Ling Hopgood
Outer Search, Inner Journey: An Orphan and Adoptee's Quest by Peter Dodds
Outsiders Within, Writing on Transracial Adoption edited by Jane Jeong Trenka, Julia Chinyere Oparah, and Sun Yung Shin
The Language of Blood by Jane Jeong Trenka
The Unforgotten War: Dust of the Streets by Thomas Park Clement
Twice Born: Memoirs of an Adopted Daughter by Betty Jean Lifton