Exclusive: Proof that US Government Will Not Fully Track IA Disruptions

Thanks to our reader who has forwarded the email exchange with the DOS Adoption Unit at the US Office of Children’s Issues and for allowing us to cite and blog about this important topic.

I have expressed disgust with the misleading tables that DOS has presented in its annual adoption statistics report as it is useless data that does not represent the problem of disruption/dissolutions in IA.

This misleading data contributes to PAPs misunderstanding of the scope of the problem and prevents full due diligence of their agency who gets to “hide” their failed placements.

Regarding the 2010 statistics, I remarked “Table 4 lists disruptions as reported by states to HHS. This has to be the most pathetically-lacking table we have ever seen. Not only does this not even scratch the surface in total disruptions and dissolutions in the US, agencies are listed as unknown or not reported.

 

The only thing this exposes is the joke that collection of disruption information and enforcement of its reporting really is.”

 

Regarding the 2011 statistics, I remarked that they had a “bizarre collection of 5 disruptions (4 from India and 1 from Philippines).” As a reminder, only 29% of FY2011 cases were completed under Hague rules.

So now we have the full proof that this was not mere oversight or incompetence but it was by design all along.

This is important as we talk about reform, because not only can reformers not trust the adoption industry, JCICS, etc, but you CANNOT trust anyone in the government. They have the backs of the industry. This is why we need to rally ethics from a general public/media standpoint and FORCE IT. Disruptions hurt business. Anyone reporting things is seen as an obstacle.

We showed you last week how the US embassy in Guatemala and DOS were complicit with trafficking in Guatemala.

Now, we show you how one AP who disrupted tried to get her data recorded, why that NEVER will happen and why this emboldens agencies to encourage APs to disrupt privately. Only if the child enters US foster care will they ever have a chance of being recorded on the DOS report. Most cases we track are privately re-homed or transferred. Agencies are never held accountable and never will be in this “model.”

 

The Messages (Name redacted)

 

Message 1 (AP to DOS) from February 2012

 

“I am writing to try and find out where exactly a disruption or dissolution would be listed on the tables of information? We dissolved an adoption from China in 2010 and the adopting family finalized in 2011 and I do not see it listed on 2010 or 2011 tables. We told our agency and they told us the information was disclosed to the DOS but we can find no record of that. I am highly concerned that agencies are skirting the rules and accurate information is not being disclosed on these matters. We brought the child home and she had several undisclosed needs and we had to find another family on our own. We did all we were supposed to and feel this information should be public so people can see this agency has had a disruption. Please advise me if I am looking in the wrong place, but I really want this documented”

 

Message 2 (DOS to AP) from February 2012

 

” Just to clarify and so that we can provide a complete response – to what “tables of information” are you referring?

Thank you in advance.

Yours truly,

AdoptionUSCA”

Message 3 (AP to DOS) from February 2012

 

“Hi,

There are tables of statistics on the Dept. of State website. They show the different countries adoptions were completed from and at the bottom they show disruption statistics.”

 

Message 4 (DOS to AP) 37 days after Message 3

 

” We regret the delay in responding to your inquiry concerning reporting the dissolution in the United States of the adoption of a child you adopted from China in 2010; the child was subsequently re-adopted in the United States by another family after the dissolution. The second placement appears to have been made privately (i.e., the child did not enter the state foster care system pursuant to the dissolution of the adoption and pending placement with a new adoptive family). You wrote to express concern that the dissolution of your adoption in the United States did not appear to be among the statistics provided in the Annual Report on Intercountry Adoption.

It is important to note that the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (IAA) requires the State Department to report on the “number of Convention placements for adoption in the United States that were disrupted” (IAA section 104(b)(3), excerpted below). Federal implementing regulations for the Intercountry Adoption Act (IAA), 22 CFR Part 96, define adoption disruption as “the interruption of a placement for adoption during the post-placement period”, and adoption dissolution as “the termination of the adoptive parent(s)’ parental rights after an adoption.” The situation described in your message is an adoption dissolution, and not a required element of the report. In the FY 2011 Annual Report on Intercountry Adoption, disrupted intercountry adoption cases reported to the Department are found in Table 6.

Additional information received from the Department of Health and Human Services pursuant to section 422(b)(14) of the Social Security Act (see below) is also included in the FY 2011 annual report, however it does not appear that the case about which you are writing would be reported through this channel as it does not appear that the child you adopted entered state foster care.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The IAA §205 amended Section 422(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 622(b)(14)) as follows:

‘(14) provide that the State shall collect and report information on children who are adopted from other countries and who enter into State custody as a result of the disruption of a placement for adoption or the dissolution of an adoption, including the number of children, the agencies who handled the placement or adoption, the plans for the child, and the reasons for the disruption or dissolution.’

 

If you wish to file a complaint about the actions of the accredited adoption agency that made the original placement of child with you, you may wish to consider submitting the complaint to the Hague Complaint Registry (please see: http://adoption.state.gov/hague_convention/agency_accreditation/complaints.php ).

We hope this is helpful.

Sincerely,

Jean Louis

Adoption Division

Office of Children’s Issues

Department of State”

 

And Hague Complaints go through COA. COA has Tom DiFilipo of JCICS on its Board. Oops! A little bird told me that the COA board torch has passed to none other than Chuck Johnson of NCFA. Chuck is famous for suing Torry Hansen. So APs are being asked to file complaints to a group that condones and participates in SUING APs. Fabulous!

 

The deplorable circle of protection of the Adoption Industry in full view.

REFORM Puzzle Piece