June Through December 2008 from the JCICS Files

June 2008
FireflyDiscussions continued on whether to merge the NGO, Firefly, with the JCICS. Firefly’s website is here
http://www.fireflykids.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=50 .

“Firefly’s mission has evolved to include:
Education and Training: disseminating international best practices and supporting well-trained Russians as they lead reform in their own country

Prevention and Reunification: keeping children in birth families and out of orphanages by supporting families via social services and medical care.”

The strategies of this NGO is to provide training to medical and psychological personnel in Russia and to aid in kinship care, foster-to adopt domestic programs and helping children who age out of Russian institutions. http://www.fireflykids.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=24&Itemid=80

The JCICS notes stated that “[d]iscussion was held regarding the pros and cons of a merger with Firefly. Non-negotiable points were also identified.

“Both sides discussed potential risks and rewards. Both organizations are passionate about the global health of orphans worldwide and are strong on measurement of program outcomes and regular reevaluation of their strategic plans.”

But both sides do not seem to have the same goal. The JCICS is for international adoption placement and Firefly is for everything OPPOSITE to that. Was that, perhaps, the “nonnegotiable” that the JCICS was talking about? No surprise to us that in the end Firefly never became part of the JCICS.

July 2008Trips to Africa
Rwanda
“Gladney & Saddleback church attended the trip to Rwanda. Adoptions are moving forward there. Most likely the government will limit the number of agencies working there to five worldwide, with two of them being from the U.S.”

It is important to note that not only did a large, influential agency go on this trip with the JCICS, but a large church accompanied them. This again shows how the JCICS is affiliating themselves with adoption ministries to increase their clientele.

Ethiopia
“Ethiopia was considering a suspension of adoptions. The meetings held seemed to have deterred the government from a closure to a reduction of adoption service providers from 70 to 40. At least a dozen will be delisted as they do not offer a broad range of child welfare services there. The issue of whether or not agencies need to be Hague Accredited was also raised by some officials.

The standards of practice developed by JCICS were well received; two of the ministries (MOJ & MFA) communicated their desire to continue and strengthen their relationship with JCICS. To that end they have strongly encouraged JCICS to have an official representative on the ground to be present in Addis.”

At this point in Ethiopia, the corruption was so great that almost half of the agencies were shut down. It is important to note that the JCICS standards contain blockades between the original family and adoptive family that are supposedly for transparency. In actuality, it allows the adoption agency to maintain complete control over the situation and this can in fact hide irregularities in relinquishment and unethical agency practices .

“9.1.5.. There should not be any exchange of contact information (addresses, e-mail,

telephone numbers), nor direct contact between birth families and APs. All

correspondence should go through the ASP. Only letters, redacted post-placement

reports and photos shall be exchanged after the adoption; and

9.1.6.. Visits will take place in a controlled, quiet, neutral environment rather than in a

public setting. The visit should not take place at the birth family’s home or at the

adoptive family’s hotel/guesthouse.

9.1.7.. ASPs will facilitate, train and support local staff and ET-NGO staff to ensure

ethical and appropriate interaction between APs and birth family.

9.1.8.. Meetings between APs and birth family must be regularly monitored by a

representative or staffperson from the ASP’s office in Ethiopia.”

Combined with this part “4.1.3.. Documenting that information about a child’s initial social history and family history is preserved and kept confidential between interested adoption parties”, section 9 actually makes the JCICS member agency an “interested party” since they are doing all of the translating and overseeing the interaction.

http://www.jcics.org/Ethiopia%20Standards%20of%20Practice.pdf

Moaning about COA“It has become increasingly clear that the COA appeal process is not effective. It appears that once an agency is denied Hague Accreditation there is no significant way to try to change the outcome. There are concerns that COA has become increasingly less responsive since JCICS has raised this issue.”

What the JCICS was moaning about is frankly one of the only good things that has come out of the COA process. At least the small number of denied agencies cannot practice in Hague countries. Unfortunately, there are some that have continued to operate in non-Hague countries like Ethiopia, Uganda, Congo and Haiti.

August 2008
Ethiopia Again
“Tom just returned from another trip. JCICS is well positioned there and our presence continues to grow.”

The JCICS is increasing their trips and influence. More and more documentation of corruption is also occurring in this timeframe.

Haiti“[A] task force has been put together. It consists of JCICS, crèche directors, orphanage directors, IBESR, UNICEF and service providers. It will work towards creating standards by which children come into care. The goal is to elevate confidence in the adoption process there and help reduce the timeframe that adoptions are completed, as it is currently an average of two years.”

So exactly how does one “craft standards by which children come into care”? Sounds more like crafting paperwork to make it look legitimate.

India“CARA has asked JCICS to help sponsor and coordinate a trip to the US for them.”

The India adoption overseer outright asked JCICS for travel money.

About that Adoption Shop in the US Government…FFOA speeds on with the JCICS, hoping that they will have extreme influence on this new department.

“The Families For Orphans Coalition has completed their work and the result of their efforts will be introduced within the next 30 days by a member of Congress. As noted before this will create an office within DOS that is funded to oversee policy on permanency for children, US government activities related to permanency and brings all diplomatic function for permanency issues to that office.”

October 2008Merger with Family Preservation NGO
“Tom met with Nicole and Diana of Firefly. The door is still open to the possibility of a merger. JCICS has communicated sincere interest in furthering talks when Firefly is ready. Some of their representatives may accompany Tom on the next trip to Haiti.”

As stated before, it does not appear that this family preservation NGO merged with the JCICS.

Vietnam
“Negotiations for a new MOA between Vietnam and the US regarding adoptions continue to proceed.

DOS and JCICS have cautioned families not to accept any referrals of special needs children though the Vietnamese law allows for these cases to proceed in the absence of an MOA.”

So why were JCICS agencies giving referrals to begin with?

Haiti
The press was still on to quicken the process though there was no indication that corruption was lessening.

“Tom will be traveling to Haiti again soon. It is hoped that current efforts will reduce the time it takes to complete an adoption there from 24 months to around 12.”

December 2008
We are not surprised about the continued lack of standards. They still want the membership dues of Hague-denied members.

“Discussion took place regarding a reconsideration of the decision to not allow Hague denied members to reapply for JCICS membership.

If this was a policy decision, it should have been voted and approved as such and

incorporated into the policies and procedures manual. If it was a bylaw decision, then the

membership would be required to vote on the issue. Though the legal opinion obtained

from Pittman & Shaw substantiated the board’s decision as policy, many in the

membership feel that this fell under the category of a bylaw change and desire to vote on

the issue.

Pros and cons of the decision were further discussed, including the impact on JCICS’

advocacy efforts overseas, the impact on Hague denied members, and so forth.

MOTION: To suspend the motion passed that Hague denied members do not

qualify for JCICS membership and to suspend the activation of a “vote to vote”

procedure, pending a survey of the membership and further board discussion on

this issue. All members will be allowed to reapply for membership and pay dues on

a quarterly basis until this issue is fully resolved.”

June 2008 full notes http://poundpuplegacy.org/files/jcics/June_25,_2008_Minutes.pdf

July 2008 Full Notes http://poundpuplegacy.org/files/jcics/July_16,_2008_Minutes.pdf

August 2008 full notes http://poundpuplegacy.org/files/jcics/August%2013,%202008%20Minutes.pdf

October 2008 full notes http://poundpuplegacy.org/files/jcics/October%2015,%202008%20Minutes.pdf

December 2008 full notes http://poundpuplegacy.org/files/jcics/December%2011,%202008%20Minutes.pdf

For all 2005-2009 meeting minutes, see http://poundpuplegacy.org/node/46329

REFORM Puzzle Piece