The Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption
[Update 10/06/00: The Bill was passed by both Houses of Congress and signed into law today by President Clinton. However, controversy continues over the manner in which it will be implemented, and this article will remain active in our archive for reference purposes as the implementation process is hammered out.] There is a
bill in Congress to ratify and implement the Hague Convention. Heard about it?
Some news stories make it appear as though the entire rational adoption community is behind the legislation, which includes not only ratification but also a complex implementation plan. However, opposition is quite a bit more widespread.
For many of us, the mere mention of the
Hague Convention of 29 May 1993 on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption makes our eyes glaze over. We think that with that kind of title, it will take forever to understand even if we do get around to reading it. So we leave it to others to read and interpret for us.
Big mistake. By letting others do all the work, we effectively relinquish control of practices affecting us as individual families to a few loud voices with political clout, and to a few politicians who sit on committees and get paid to make our lives extremely convoluted, regulated, and expensive. That's not to say that the bill is bad. That's for each of us to decide.
The issue is that we, present and future adoptive families, may know very little about something that could affect us, and we may not be taking the opportunity to express our support or opposition when we should.
If we know anything about our principles of government, we know that we have the right to make decisions based on informed consent. When we ignore that right, we also have the right to live with the consequences. |
| |
It Isn't Rocket Science The
full text of the convention is actually very easy to understand.
Central Authority: If we want to participate, we need a central authority - federal, state, or regional will do (see
Chapter III, Article 6 (2)) - through which the paperwork, dissemination of information, and accreditation of participating agencies will be handled. This authority will oversee smooth operations.
Documentation: If we want to participate, we need to provide documentation as carefully and clearly described in the convention (some model forms are available to make it really easy).
Accreditation: If we want to participate, agencies that will handle intercountry adoptions must be accredited. For an agency to be accredited, it must:
- pursue only non-profit objectives according to such conditions and within such limits as may be established by the competent authorities of the State of accreditation;
- be directed and staffed by persons qualified by their ethical standards and by training or experience to work in the field of intercountry adoption; and
- be subject to supervision by competent authorities of that State as to its composition, operation and financial situation.
Adoptions: If we want to participate, intercountry adoption must be determined to be in the best interest of the child; parents (placing and receiving)
must receive counseling; accurate records of the child's birth identity and medical history must be kept; the child must be clearly available for adoption with no evidence of coercion. Prospective adoptive parents must apply to the central authority for approval.
So Where's The Problem? The Convention itself is a marvel of simplicity. Opposing it would seem to be taking a stand against intercountry adoption and family solutions for children who need them.
So let's ratify it. We have state agency licensing procedures that could be accepted or amended to meet Hague requirements, and let's get moving. Right? Or are state licensing requirements and oversights really
not worth much?
Next page >
Enter the federal government > 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.