The Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption - page 3
"THE HAGUE CONVENTION" > Page
1,
2,
3How Deep Are Your Pockets?Who will ultimately pay for this? The federal government isn't offering to step in and pick up the bill, so adopting parents can anticipate having these expenses passed along to them. Bill opponents believe already-large agencies will be placed in positions of competitive advantage since the increase in cost they pass on will be less per adoption than what smaller agencies will have to charge. They also feel that some conscientious but small agencies will be forced to close or work only as a type of sub-contractor for a large agency because they will not have the financial resources required for accreditation. Will this result in fewer adoptions via an adoption industry that will be a big business resource only for the wealthy?
Ptasnik says, "Right now, we charge the average family less than $3,000 in fees. Some pay as little as $1,500. With both the initial cost of accreditation and the greatly increased operating costs, I predict that we will have to add at least $750 to $1,000 per adoption in fees to cover everything. Certainly, that reflects what happened in
Canada." He continues, "Frankly, we have some of the best prepared parents traveling to China. In all our adoptions (well over 200), we have only had one disruption, and that was more of a problem of part of a family not bonding to a child rather than the other way around. Our families will not be better protected by this legislation, they will simply have to pay more money for their adoption, and they will have less money to pay for their lives and the care of their child. Some will choose not to adopt."
Is this the federal government and the bill's sponsors way of telling the rest of us that only they know what is best and that this is the way it will work or it will not work at all? Or is this really necessary? Does every agency do a good job? Is
this legislation the solution to abuse?
As I Read It: Pros and ConsSupporters of the bill suggest that new regulations are needed at the federal level because current practices are not consistent, not well-regulated, and allow for abuses - and believe the proposed bill will result in:
- consistent and standardized controls that do not exist today,
- better preparation of adopting and relinquishing parents with mandated education,
- greater accountability to and from other participating countries, and
- improved adoption practices,
plus the additional benefit of keeping the doors open to continued intercountry adoptions from all countries that ratify or acceded (past and future) to the Convention. As expressed in many of the opinions, the bill is an acceptable compromise of several positions contributed by private and public agencies and entities intimately connected to adoption.
Opponents believe the bill:
- duplicates language already in existence and will not have a significant benefit,
- does not provide a cap on costs and fees,
- sets accreditation requirements that are vague and potentially favorable only to large agencies,
- will put facilitators and small agencies out of business, and
- will bring the federal government into adoption practices that have traditionally been under state purview.
Further, they believe a major outcome will be fewer adoptions when costs associated with accreditation compliance are passed onto adopting parents, who may elect not to adopt.
The AlternativesAlternatives are my own creations, based on reading what supporters and opponents have to say. HB2909 is currently under consideration by Congress and as of this writing (5/29/00) no alternatives have been formally proposed. These alternatives do not necessarily reflect the views of any proponents or opponents.
Current Proposal:Ratify with implementation attachments (HB2909). The US State Department becomes the central authority with the power to name any private and/or public entity to carry out the functions required, and to direct adoption practices which have previously been handled by individual states. Under the existing bill, unaccredited facilitators and small agencies could continue to work as long as they operate under the wing of an accredited agency which would bear responsibility for their practices.
Alternative #1:Ratify with minimal federal oversight. Accept state licensing entities as state central authorities, making sure they meet the Hague requirements in their licensing processes; establish a central federal oversight office for transmission of reports, paperwork, and interaction with other governments. Any entity that wishes to participate must be licensed.
Alternative #2:Don't ratify. If we don't ratify (and implement) the Convention, intercountry adoptions can continue with countries that have not signed and ratified or acceded to the Convention, and may stop with countries that have. Mention has been made of several countries (Brazil, Mexico, Guatemala and Romania in particular) that have indicated they will permit adoptions by residents/nationals of
only those countries that ratify the Convention, and Asst. Secretary of State Ryan indicated in her testimony [see link below] that other countries from which Americans adopt are waiting for the US implementation plan before drafting their own. [
List of countries that have signed, ratifed, and/or acceded to the Convention.]
Be Informed> > Page
1,
2,
3
Home
Add Your Comments!
We want to know what you think. Your comments are important to us and the other readers. You are what makes this site special.