Public Service Announcement on the Opening and Re-Opening of Countries for International Adoption and Grandfathering of Cases

Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Uganda, Honduras, Rwanda are the “new,” heavily-marketed programs.

The go-to phrase for an agency starting a “new” program is “pilot program.” This tends to be agency speak for “We aren’t sure if the program will work but once you sign up for it you’ll never see your money again if the program fails.”

Promises of young infants usually follow as you are the “first” clients to “pioneer” and help the grim situation—with the tradeoff being that the higher risk for you will allow you to adopt a younger child if the adoption can be completed. In some cases, like DRC and Uganda, adoption agencies are not in place on the foreign side; you use a lawyer, but US agencies set up programs that are not detectably different to the consumer even though you’d assume the costs would be much lower. In order to hide this fact from clients, agencies “support” you; they “provide dossier services” but they don’t “submit your dossier”; they “assist you with finding a child,” but they don’t “refer or place.” Instead, they “recommend” a lawyer but they don’t “require” a particular lawyer (as if you could figure it out on your own) or they are “just a ministry” and not an “agency” but they are performing basically the same function as an agency.

In the case of Honduras, there were only a few agencies operating in this low-placing country, but now a flood of agencies are descending on it. Not surprisingly, there has not been increase of orphans or referrals.

In all of these countries mentioned there are issues of displaced people from neighboring countries. These people are particularly vulnerable to poverty and live on the fringe. These are the easiest people to exploit, especially for their children, as they have no documentation. Turning that situation into an “abandonment” situation is remarkably easy for those who know how to create bogus paperwork.

Grandfathering Adoptive Parent Cases-in-Progress in Closed Countries

USCIS wrote rules for grandfathering cases to follow I-600 process vs. the I-800 process on the US side when Hague went into effect. This ruling did not take into account ethics or trafficking in specific cases.

In countries where Hague is being implemented, it is NOT for bureaucratic reasons as the adoption industry would like you to believe. Coercion and harvesting have been rampant in these countries. Hague tries to control corruption and/or trafficking. Having a centralized, government-based referral process lessens the extreme recruiting tactics of the industry. It doesn’t solve the problem, but it is a step in the right direction.

We have discussed the Vietnam Bac Lieu cases here  and Krygyzstan cases here .These are cases in which pre-identified children had been referred or were in the process of referral (but not actually adopted). The Guatemala “pipeline” cases have similarities to Vietnam and Krygyzstan cases in that they involved referred children. In practicality in these countries, children have been “held” for particular families until the process can be worked out. Agencies and PAPs will argue until they are blue in the face that because of the “hold” that they should quickly rubberstamp the case and allow the PAP to adopt in this corrupt Wild West environment. But is that really what is in the best interest of the child for the long term? It really is in the best interest of the adoption agency to close cases and not have governments poke around (See what the Guatemala CICIG investigation turned up here )and for the PAP (“Dibs! I saw her first!”), who may not qualify under Hague rules or who may have to pay more money to be approved by a Hague-accredited homestudy agency.

There are also China  PAPs that are part of the grandfathering process. These cases differ in that a child had not been referred yet. Many China PAPs would not qualify under the Hague new rules, but they will be allowed to adopt children NOT REFERRED YET because of grandfathering. Why even have rules if you care more about a PAP waiting for five to six years than if the child is being placed appropriately!

For Guatemala, Vietnam and Kyrgyzstan, entangled in the Hague change is corruption, trafficking and offering children that were not eligible for international adoption.

For China, documented trafficking throughout many provinces has tainted the entire system. Their Wild West Special Focus program has filled the gaps in the industry’s and country’s money flow. While on one side, China tightens regulations for healthy referrals, they are simultaneously loosening regulations for the Special Focus Program(refer to our Waivermania post here.)

See this USCIS document for the specifics about the I-600 extensions in the grandfathered cases.

USCIS is having a teleconference on January 31, 2012 on the subject of China and Guatemala cases (see invitation here )The logistics are pasted below:

“ To Participate in the Session

Any interested parties may participate in this event by telephone. All participants must respond to this invitation. Please contact the Office of Public Engagement at public.engagement@dhs.gov by Monday January 30, 2012 referencing “Adoption” in the subject line of your email. Please also include your full name and the organization you represent, if any, in the body of the email.

To Join the Call
On the day of the engagement please use the information below to join the session by phone. We recommend calling in 10 minutes prior to the start of the teleconference.

Call-in Number: 1-888-989-6491

Overseas Toll Number: 1-415-228-3902

Passcode: Adoption”

Nepal, Vietnam, Kyrgyzstan and Guatemala. These four countries shut down their international adoption programs due to corruption and/or trafficking. All of these countries are in the process of re-opening.

Recruitment and Re-opening of a Country to IA

When a country re-opens, we start to see agencies recruiting clients PRIOR to agencies being relicensed. This should never be permitted. This automatic assumption that an agency will get a license is absolutely despicable. Think about it. If an agency had been part of the corruption and ethical violations in a country before it shut down, why on earth should they be allowed to be accredited if and when this country reopens? They clearly did not engage in appropriate due diligence before, so why should anyone with any dose of sanity think this agency has suddenly reformed its ways and become ethical?

22CFR96

One of  the loopholes that is given as an example in the regulations themselves in Section 96.15 found  here :

“Example 1. Identifying a child for adoption and arranging an adoption. Agency X identifies children eligible for adoption in the United States on a TV program in an effort to recruit prospective adoptive parent(s). A couple in a Convention country calls Agency X about one of the children. Agency X refers them to an agency or person in the United States who arranges intercountry adoptions. Agency X does not require accreditation, temporarily accreditation, approval or supervision because it is not both identifying and arranging the adoption. In contrast, Agency Y, located in the United States, provides information about children eligible for adoption in a Convention country on a website and then arranges for interested U.S. parents to adopt those children. Agency Y must be accredited, temporarily accredited, approved, or supervised because, in addition to identifying children eligible for adoption, it is also helping to arrange the adoption.”

This shows that unaccredited agencies can recruit parents for children – children that may not even be eligible and send possible unapprovable PAPs to agencies that supervise them or have affiliations in their lobbying agency. Who knows what kind of kickbacks occur to that “recruiter!” The unaccredited agency is let off the hook because they don’t fulfill two of the services. Notice that it apparently doesn’t matter to regulators how some unaccredited agency would have information on children to begin with. That is probably one reason why only weak suggestions can be given by DOS.

For a weak DOS suggestion about re-opening Vietnam, see here .

For a weak DOS suggestion about re-opening Nepal, see here.

COA Standards

Found here for adoption service providers, but not necessarily for intercountry adoption,

“AS 1.03
Recruitment is conducted in a responsive, respectful, and ethical manner.

REAL Reform: Monitoring Foreign Employees and Contractors

Last September, we highlighted some basic international business principles here which should be part of the monitoring of foreign employees and contractors. The main reforms that we suggested were Facilitator code of conduct; Mandatory annual agency-paid-for audit overseas; mandatory Facilitator Responsibility Annual Report ; New, pilot programs would have to have similar audit checklist and code of conduct prior to opening a program and it would have to be mandatory to publish to the general public and before being allowed to sign on clients;and Penalties for lying on reports should include license pulling and banning of agency.

If other businesses consider this the norm, then why shouldn’t the adoption industry be held to the same standards?

Guatemala

Guatemala is only going to be working with a select few sending countries. The US may not be one of them. There is no law that prohibits an adoption agency to put out feelers for clients, advertise, or solicit clients for “pilot programs.” (Except for moral law.) We haven’t seen anyone start to advertise in open or closed quarters as of this publish date, but we wouldn’t be surprised if recruitment did begin.

Kyrgyzstan

As we have reported, the local media in November 2011    shared that they will approve 3 US agencies and that 7 were vying for those spots. On Monday, we reported that CWA was accredited and one of the Kyrgyz 65 on their blog was acting under the assumption that their agency would be approved. It is therefore a valid assumption that 4 agencies will NOT be approved and two more WILL be approved.

The questions are: How could a PAP know which agencies are going to get approval? Who would tell them if not their agency? If the US State Department isn’t divulging this information or claiming knowledge of it, then SOMEONE (like a national lobbying group such as NCFA or JCICS) MUST be having inside knowledge or negotiations OR the agencies are spitting in the wind.

Neither scenario is a good one. In a Hague country, one would hope (and we don’t hold our breath on this) that the ACCREDITING ENTITIES and governments would be the ONLY ones to know who is being chosen. One would also hope that those that get chosen should be “clean” agencies that can prove that they will behave ethically, abide by laws, and not hire criminal traffickers to supply the much-desired young orphans. Is that too much to ask? What do you think?

Vietnam

At the Brandeis University/Schuster Institute link, here,  you can search their archived articles about the pervasiveness of corruption in Vietnam adoptions, and see the names of some of the agencies who were involved. Keep a list for yourself and then ask yourself why any of these agencies should be allowed to operate during the re-opening that seemingly soon will happen.

We CAN tell you that no agency has accreditation yet BUT at least one is actively recruiting clients AS IF they expect to be accredited.

You see, either they know that no one is going to stop them, so they thumb their noses at ethics…or they have inside information and already “know” from their lobbying organization that their agency is on the list for approval. Watch closely for which agencies and which PAPs will get those first placements.

Nepal

It wasn’t that long ago that our own Office of Children’s Issues declared that 90 percent of children in Nepal’s orphanages were not orphans nor did they qualify for IA. Yet DOS came out on January 19, 2012 with a weak statement saying “please oh please agencies don’t start a program” and “if it wouldn’t be too much trouble for you , little desperate PAP, consider not applying.”

As a Nepal article stated that they are contacting interested parties, you can bet that means US agencies are  at the chance to start the money flow.

Money Flow

What agencies look for to survive is an ever-constant money flow. They need some adoptions to be completed in order to pay to advertise and market themselves and keep sucking in new and naive clients. As long as they have a fresh batch of green and trusting PAPs handing over those initial fees, they will be accomplishing their goal: Note, however, that this goal doesn’t seem to have much to do with the ethical adoption of legitimate orphans.

Before you dot another I on an agency contract, do your homework. Spend as much time is needed to research any agency’s previous business history in any country you may be considering. Armed with this knowledge, you can then ask them—and yourself—what you think they are going to do differently this time around. If experience is any indication, we have no hope that these agencies that proved themselves unable to act in an ethical fashion will have been hit by a thunderbolt of ethics or conscience and begin to act like decent human beings.

Clearly those at the COA, State Department, and individual state agency-licensing boards are turning a blind eye to the criminals who made a bundle in the above-mentioned countries before they were shut down. Only you as a consumer have the power to demand changes. Speak with your pocketbook. Do not sign on with crooks. Demand transparency and accountability. No one is policing this underworld and unfortunately that leaves both the children and your family vulnerable.

REFORM Puzzle Pieces