PDA

View Full Version : When will the US ratify the UN Convention?


Dian
12-27-2003, 06:21 AM
http://www.bcadoption.com/info/intercountry/hagueandus.html

The Hague Convention and US Adoptions to Canada

by Helen Mark

"Tell Canadians if they are hoping to adopt from the United States, to
hurry up. Once the US ratifies the Hague Convention, adoptions to
Canada will stop." These are the words of a staff person working at a
US agency. How accurate are they?


Background
Canada has signed and ratified the Hague Convention. The US has signed
but not ratified. Signing means a country has agreed to the principles
laid out in the convention—ratification means a country has all the
implementing legislation and regulations in place and is ready to
enforce the agreement. Both countries, the country receiving the child
and the child's birth country, must ratify in order for the treaty to
apply. According to Canadian immigration statistics, 65 American
children were adopted by Canadians in 2001.

Why Have The Hague Convention?
The Hague Convention was drafted in the ealy 90's in response to
abuses that were taking place in intercountry adoption, primarily in
Romania but in other countries as well. Countries that have
imple-mented the Convention and are abiding by its articles are
guaranteeing ethical adoption practices and are recognizing that
intercountry adoption is a service to homeless children. According to
Susan Cox, Vice President of Public Policy and External Affairs for
Holt International Children's Services in Oregon, one of the most
respected adoption agencies in the US, it is an individual solution
for children who need families. The Convention ensures, amongst other
things, that families are eligible and suitable to adopt, that
international adoption is in the child's best interest, that
informaton on the child will be collected and perserved for life and
that post-adoption services will be available to the family.

The Convention recognizes that children should grow up in a family
environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding. It
states that countries should take measures to enable a child to stay
with his or her original family. However, it also establishes that
intercountry adoption is preferred over long-term foster care or
institutionalization. At the NACAC conference in Chicago in August
2002, a panel of knowledgable people, including Cox, emphasized over
and over that intercountry adoption is about serving children. They
worry that some agencies and families see it as serving parents.

Will the US Ratify?
This seems to be the six million dollar question. Americans working in
adoption and pushing for ratification felt they were in the
homestretch a year ago. Now they are not so sure. At the last NACAC
conference, panelists spoke of it happening eventually, but the US
Congress has held up ratification even though the Senate has given
approval. The US played a central role in drafting the treaty articles
and signed on in 1994. Little happened between 1994 and 1998. During
the Clinton years, it was sent to Congress and on to the Senate. US
families adopt more children from abroad than all other countries of
the world put together. Yearly, 20,000 children are adopted
internationally by US families. Two hundred thousand children
worldwide have been adopted internationally since the end of the
Korean War in 1953. One hundred and fifty thousand of those children
have been placed in the US. Considering the numbers, many American
adoption workers feel the US should play a leadership role and ratify
the Convention as quickly as possible. The lack of will to sign has
become an embarrassment, and there is a fear that some countries will
refuse to work with American adoption agencies unless the US signs
soon. Once the US ratifies the Convention, China, Russia and other
countries will likely follow. To date, 42 countries have ratified.

Barb Holtan, Executive Director of Tressler Luthern Services, said at
the NACAC conference that US international adoptions have become "a
swamp." She implied there are too many unregulated agencies and that
many of them are there to serve parents, not children. She said some
US agencies are run like businesses and not social service agencies
and that money has replaced secrecy as the most toxic force in
intercountry adoption today. At Tressler Services, adopted children
are asking their parents, "How much did you pay for me?" or "How much
did I cost?" Barb says this is an appalling situation.

The delay in ratification may be related to the sheer number of
adoption agencies and states involved. Also, there is strong
opposition to some of the implementing legislation that will have to
be passed.

Ratification is also complicated by the events of September 11, 2001,
and changes to US immigration laws and regulations. According to the
panelists at NACAC, rumors abound and the panelists were worried
ratification may not happen soon.
If and when the US does ratify, it's difficult to say how adoptions to
Canada will be affected. The head of one BC adoption agency doesn't
think things will change at all—children still could be placed in
Canada if long-term foster care in the US is a strong possibility for
a child. In the meantime, don't hold your breath waiting for the US to
ratify.

Perhaps the person who said hurry up if you want to adopt from the US
is not very busy right now and needs the business.

Marley Greiner
12-27-2003, 09:35 AM
"Dian" <patrice68@bigpond.com.au> wrote in message
news:c599139c.0312270621.3b19384c@posting.google.c om... http://www.bcadoption.com/info/intercountry/hagueandus.html The Hague Convention and US Adoptions to Canada by Helen Mark "Tell Canadians if they are hoping to adopt from the United States, to hurry up. Once the US ratifies the Hague Convention, adoptions to Canada will stop." These are the words of a staff person working at a US agency. How accurate are they? Background Canada has signed and ratified the Hague Convention. The US has signed but not ratified. Signing means a country has agreed to the principles laid out in the convention-ratification means a country has all the implementing legislation and regulations in place and is ready to enforce the agreement. Both countries, the country receiving the child and the child's birth country, must ratify in order for the treaty to apply. According to Canadian immigration statistics, 65 American children were adopted by Canadians in 2001. Why Have The Hague Convention? The Hague Convention was drafted in the ealy 90's in response to abuses that were taking place in intercountry adoption, primarily in Romania but in other countries as well. Countries that have imple-mented the Convention and are abiding by its articles are guaranteeing ethical adoption practices and are recognizing that intercountry adoption is a service to homeless children. According to Susan Cox, Vice President of Public Policy and External Affairs for Holt International Children's Services in Oregon, one of the most respected adoption agencies in the US, it is an individual solution for children who need families. The Convention ensures, amongst other things, that families are eligible and suitable to adopt, that international adoption is in the child's best interest, that informaton on the child will be collected and perserved for life and that post-adoption services will be available to the family. The Convention recognizes that children should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding. It states that countries should take measures to enable a child to stay with his or her original family. However, it also establishes that intercountry adoption is preferred over long-term foster care or institutionalization. At the NACAC conference in Chicago in August 2002, a panel of knowledgable people, including Cox, emphasized over and over that intercountry adoption is about serving children. They worry that some agencies and families see it as serving parents. Will the US Ratify? This seems to be the six million dollar question. Americans working in adoption and pushing for ratification felt they were in the homestretch a year ago. Now they are not so sure. At the last NACAC conference, panelists spoke of it happening eventually, but the US Congress has held up ratification even though the Senate has given approval. The US played a central role in drafting the treaty articles and signed on in 1994. Little happened between 1994 and 1998. During the Clinton years, it was sent to Congress and on to the Senate. US families adopt more children from abroad than all other countries of the world put together. Yearly, 20,000 children are adopted internationally by US families. Two hundred thousand children worldwide have been adopted internationally since the end of the Korean War in 1953. One hundred and fifty thousand of those children have been placed in the US. Considering the numbers, many American adoption workers feel the US should play a leadership role and ratify the Convention as quickly as possible. The lack of will to sign has become an embarrassment, and there is a fear that some countries will refuse to work with American adoption agencies unless the US signs soon. Once the US ratifies the Convention, China, Russia and other countries will likely follow. To date, 42 countries have ratified. Barb Holtan, Executive Director of Tressler Luthern Services, said at the NACAC conference that US international adoptions have become "a swamp." She implied there are too many unregulated agencies and that many of them are there to serve parents, not children. She said some US agencies are run like businesses and not social service agencies and that money has replaced secrecy as the most toxic force in intercountry adoption today. At Tressler Services, adopted children are asking their parents, "How much did you pay for me?" or "How much did I cost?" Barb says this is an appalling situation. The delay in ratification may be related to the sheer number of adoption agencies and states involved. Also, there is strong opposition to some of the implementing legislation that will have to be passed. Ratification is also complicated by the events of September 11, 2001, and changes to US immigration laws and regulations. According to the panelists at NACAC, rumors abound and the panelists were worried ratification may not happen soon. If and when the US does ratify, it's difficult to say how adoptions to Canada will be affected. The head of one BC adoption agency doesn't think things will change at all-children still could be placed in Canada if long-term foster care in the US is a strong possibility for a child. In the meantime, don't hold your breath waiting for the US to ratify. Perhaps the person who said hurry up if you want to adopt from the US is not very busy right now and needs the business.

This isn't the UN convention on the rights of the child. It's the Hague
Treaty on Intercountry Adoption. They are two very different treaties. BN
recently submitted comments on the IAA--the implementation language to the
Hague---to the US State Department. To say the IAA is mess is to put it
mildly. It took State 10 years to come up with these fox in the hen house
regulations. In my opinion and the opinion of many or most others, that the
whole thing has to be re-written. It reeks. It's all about industry
control of the marketplace and process. The only people to make out well,
if it is enacted in it's current form, is agencies--and big agencies at
that.

Just about everybody is against the IAA for one reason or another..
Agencies oppose because of insurance standards (one of the only good things
about the IAA). Virtually everybody opposes because of the accreditation
scheme (huge money involved) which privatizes accreditation of agencies
doing international adoptions to private and public entities (and again, I
use the term loosely)--favors to be doled out by State, which has washed its
hand of any meaningful control over international adoption. Our own
objections cover accreditation, records retention, records access, and the
outsourcing of US children.

As for Canadian paranoia--cheesh! Adoptable children under the Hague must
be available for international placement BUT only when a suitable home
cannot be found for them in their own homeland (this excludes stepparent
adoption or kinship placement abroad) unless it's in the child's best
interest to be placed internationally. (No definition of what that
means--open of the objections). We already know that US children are being
sent to Europe by at last one expensive agency while thousands of US PAPs
stand in a well-behaved line. Would you believe that currently the Feds
don't even keep a records of these adoptions???!!!

As soon as I get the press release finished I'll post it here and you can
read our comments. It should be in the next day or so.

Marley

Complete Labor Law Poster for $24.95
from www.LaborLawCenter.com, includes
State, Federal, & OSHA posting requirements