During the ’80s, UNICEF promoted the belief that international adoption was “creating serious and complex human and legal problems and the absence of existing domestic and international legal instruments indicated the need for a multilateral approach.” In 1989, UNICEF began work on the Convention. It was approved by the UN in May 1993. President Clinton signed it in 1994. Congress ratified it in 2000 and the law (Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000) implementing it went into effect in April 2008.
Overview
When an adoption occurs between two countries who have ratified and implementing the mandates of the Convention (I call those Convention countries), they must adhered to the Convention in accord with the laws of the respective countries. A major advantage of a Convention country is that it cannot change the adoption procedures at will like a non-Convention country. For that aspect alone, I wish the Convention had been in place when we adopted my daughter from Guatemala in 2002.
The Convention does not prevent adoptions between the 86 Convention countries (Vietnam ratified the Convention last week and it will go into effect on 2/1/12) and non-Convention countries. Non-Convention countries Ethiopia, Russia South Korea, and Ukraine accounted for 44% of 2010 adoptions. Convention country China accounted for 31% of the adoption. These five countries sent 75% of the children in 2010.
The Convention requires the creation of a central adoption authority in each Convention country. For the US, the Office of Children’s Issues in the Bureau of Consular Affairs at the U.S. Department of State is our central authority. It is run by Ambassador Susan Jacobs.
Guatemala and Cambodia are unique Convention countries in relationship to the US. Neither have convinced our central authority that they are implementing the mandates of the Convention. For that reason, adoptions cannot occur between the US and those countries.
Convention Text
The rest of this article is my commentary on the Convention.
Preamble
Recognizing that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding
Nothing is more important for a well-formed human child than growing up in this type of family.
Recalling that each State should take, as a matter of priority, appropriate measures to enable the child to remain in the care of his or her family of origin
There is no doubt that we develop our identity by our family-of-origin. In a perfect world, a child whose parent can no longer parent would be raised by extended family.
Recognizing that intercountry adoption may offer the advantage of a permanent family to a child for whom a suitable family cannot be found in his or her State of origin
In addition to a family, we gain identity from our country-of-origin. Again, in a perfect world, it is better for a child to grow up in their country of birth. As we will see later, the Convention demands that every effort must be made to find a home for the child in the sending country before make them available for international adoption.
Convinced of the necessity to take measures to ensure that intercountry adoptions are made in the best interests of the child and with respect for his or her fundamental rights, and to prevent the abduction, the sale of, or traffic in children
These are the basic tenets of the Convention. I completely agree these are important issues. Every human-from conception till natural death-is entitled to fundamental rights. The countries of the world must do all they can to prevent crimes against children such as those listed.
What the Adoption Process Needs is Another Bureaucracy
Javier Pascual Salcedo understood international adoption when he said, “Bureaucracy is the art of making the possible impossible”.
As if there are not enough organizations in international adoption telling us to cross “t”s and dot lower case “j’s, the Convention demands each country establish a Central Adoption Authority. The Central Authorities have the responsibility of implementing the Convention within the laws of their countries. They must also work with the Central Authorities in the other countries to facilitate the adoptions between the countries.
The Convention lists the reports and records that must be created, filed, and maintained with the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law in The Hague. Another role of the Central Authority is to create (or appoint) another agency to accredit adoption agencies. Title II of the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 describes how this is be done in the US.
Our Central Authority (the Office of Children’s Issues within the State Department) has designated the Council on Accreditation and the State of Colorado Department of Human Services as the accreditation bodies. These two bodies are responsible for ensuring American adoption agencies meet the standards of the Convention. If adopting from a Convention country, you must use an accredited or approve agency.
To help keep the Socialists who wrote the Convention happy, in the US we accredit not-for-profit agencies and approve for-profit agencies. They both meet the same standards; they just have different designations.
The Central Authority provides a list of all an accredited and approved agencies to all Convention countries. Those countries do the same for the US. This ensures the agencies in both countries following the same standards. If adopting from a non-Convention countries, there is no requirement to use a specific agency.
On Financial Gain
There are dirtballs out there that buy and sell children to place them for adoption. This is one of the primary reasons the Convention came into place. Anyone who does this to children should be have cola poured over them and they strung up by their most sensitive body parts over one hundred hives of honey bees.
This is when the free-market, capitalist side of me takes the keyboard. The anti-western Socialists who helped write the Convention jumped on this crime against children like a good bureaucrat and over-reacted. They wrote the Convention with an underlying theme that profit is evil.
For example, according to Article 8 the “Central Authorities shall take, directly or through public authorities, all appropriate measures to prevent improper financial or other gain in connection with an adoption…”.
Article 32 gives more details: “No one shall derive improper financial or other gain from an activity related to an intercountry adoption. Only costs and expenses, including reasonable professional fees of persons involved in the adoption, may be charged or paid. The directors, administrators and employees of bodies [adoption professionals] involved in an adoption shall not receive remuneration which is unreasonably high in relation to services rendered.”
Since Intercountry Adoption Act of 200 does not define improper gain, the definition falls to the Secretary of State to make that determination. The market determines what is proper profit. The last thing we need is government interference in setting prices or compensation of adoption professionals.
Who Can Be Placed for Adoption
Article 4 requirements are similar to the requirements of many American states concerning adoption:
- everything must be in writing
- if the child is of the age of reason the wishes of the child must be considered
- the birthparents must be completely informed of the adoption and has freely given their consent without compensation
- the child cannot be placed for adoption until after birth
Article 5 describes how adoptive parents must be are ready and competent to receive the adoptive child.
There is a clause in article 4 that bothers me: Competent authorities (that term is used throughout the Convention) in the sending country “have determined, after possibilities for placement of the child within the State of origin have been given due consideration, that an intercountry adoption is in the child’s best interests”.
To me, this says to the adoptive child, “You know, NOBODY in your country-of-origin wanted you.” 43 children were adopted from the US in 2010. That means in the country that adopts more children from other countries, among the 310,000,000+ of us, we could not find a home for 43? Something is wrong here.
Until the Central Authority in the sending country determines a child eligible for international adoption (Article 4: a-c) and the Central Authority in receiving country determines the eligibility of the adoptive parents (Article 5: a), the prospective child and prospective parents cannot meet (Article 29). There is an exception for rules established in the sending country. This means you cannot go to a Convention country on a mission trip, fall in love with an orphan, and adopt that child.
The Hague Convention Process
- American prospective parent(s) files an I-800A with the USCIS (United States Citizenship and Immigration Services).
- The parent(s) complete a homestudy including the items listed in Article 15.
- When parent(s) meet USCIS’ standards, the application is forwarded to the Central Authority in the sending country.
- When a child is determined eligible for international adoption in the sending country, their Central Authority prepares a report on the child according to Article 16 and forwards the report to US.
- Through their adoption agency, the prospective parent(s) accept the referral of the child according to Article 17.
- Both countries work through their processes to move the child to the US. Each Central Authority is required to keep the other informed of the status through the process (Article 20) and complete the process as expeditiously as possible (Article 35).
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/6709203
Recent Comments