Recently in Adoption News Category

Excerpts from this article tell it all:

On Jan. 12, a devastating earthquake toppled Haiti’s capital and set off an international adoption bonanza in which some safeguards meant to protect children were ignored.

Leading the way was the Obama administration, which responded to the crisis, and to the pleas of prospective adoptive parents and the lawmakers assisting them, by lifting visa requirements for children in the process of being adopted by Americans.

Although initially planned as a short-term, small-scale evacuation, the rescue effort quickly evolved into a baby lift unlike anything since the Vietnam War. It went on for months; fell briefly under the cloud of scandal involving 10 Baptist missionaries who improperly took custody of 33 children; ignited tensions between the United States and child protection organizations; and swept up about 1,150 Haitian children, more than were adopted by American families in the previous three years, according to interviews with government officials, adoption agencies and child advocacy groups.

Under a sparingly used immigration program, called humanitarian parole, adoptions were expedited regardless of whether children were in peril, and without the screening required to make sure they had not been improperly separated from their relatives or placed in homes that could not adequately care for them.

Some Haitian orphanages were nearly emptied, even though they had not been affected by the quake or licensed to handle adoptions. Children were released without legal documents showing they were orphans and without regard for evidence suggesting fraud. In at least one case, two siblings were evacuated even though American authorities had determined through DNA tests that the man who had given them to an orphanage was not a relative.

In other cases, children were given to families who had not been screened or to families who no longer wanted them.

The results are playing out across the country. At least 12 children, brought here without being formally matched with new families, have spent months in a Pennsylvania juvenile care center while Red Cross officials try to determine their fate. An unknown number of children whose prospective parents have backed out of their adoptions are in foster care. While the authorities said they knew of only a handful of such cases, adoption agents said they had heard about as many as 20, including that of an 8-year-old girl who was bounced from an orphanage in Haiti to a home in Ithaca, N.Y., to a juvenile care center in Queens after the psychologist who had petitioned to adopt her decided she could not raise a young child.

Dozens of children, approaching the age of 16 or older, are too old to win legal permanent status as adoptees, prompting lawmakers in Congress to consider raising the age limit to 18.

Meanwhile, other children face years of legal limbo because they have arrived with so little proof of who they are, how they got here and why they have been placed for adoption that state courts are balking at completing their adoptions.

All I can say is THANK GOD for the white man adopting all them colored babies. The white man's burden sure hasn't gotten any easier after all these years. When will the world finally understand.

Read the entire article here one the New York Times website.

This unusual international adoption case, which was recently decided by New York's highest court, has far-reaching implications for current and future best-practices as well as important policy implications. In L.M.B. v. E.R.J., 2010 NY Slip Op 1345; 14 N.Y.3d 100 (February 16, 2010), the New York Court of Appeals was called upon to untangle a New York adoption by ERJ (mother) and a Cambodian adoption by LMB (father). Each adoptive parent, who were never married to one another, claimed to be the child's only legal parent.

The child, Doe, was found abandoned in Cambodia and brought to New York by ERJ for medical treatment. Subsequently ERJ and her boyfriend, LMB, decided that they would both adopt Doe. Both ERJ and LMB erroneously believed that Cambodian children could not be adopted in the United States. It was decided that LMB (who because he had been born in Trinidad and could reclaim Trinidadian citizenship) would adopt Doe in Trinidad and Tobago. Once that adoption was finalized, ERJ would adopt Doe in New York.

As part of this plan, Cambodia issued a “document” to LMB in June 2004 which, according to the translation submitted by LMB, was entitled “ADOPTION CERTIFICATE” and stated that LMB “is allowed to adopt” Doe. The Trinidadian adoption plan never materialized. ERJ then decided she could adopt Doe in New York. LMB asked Cambodia to “relinquish” the permission he was given to adopt Doe and ERJ obtained a “certificate” like the one which was originally given to LMB.

In January 2006, ERJ filed a petition to adopt Doe in New York but did not give LMB notice of the adoption.This adoption was granted in June 2006. In August 2006, LMB discovered this adoption and moved to vacate. In the meantime the Cambodian government issued documents affirming ERJ's right to adopt and nullifying LMB's.

The lower court declared the New York adoption invalid because the 2004 Cambodian action was actually an adoption of Doe by LMB, not just permission to adopt. Based on the facts and expert testimony, the court agreed with LMB that he was Doe's father and that his parental rights had never been relinquished or extinguished. Therefore, ERJ could not adopt Doe in New York without notice to and consent from LMB.

On appeal, ERJ argued that New York should not give comity to the Cambodian adoption and claimed that LMB was not Doe's father under New York law. The Court of Appeals explained that foreign adoptions are generally recognized unless there are truly compelling reasons not to, like cases in which “enforcement . . . is shocking to the prevailing moral sense.” Because there were no compelling reasons not to recognize his Cambodian adoption of Doe, LMB's adoption would be recognized by New York.

Interestingly, the Court of Appeals raised an argument ERJ failed to make. In 2004, Doe and LMB were living in New York, not Cambodia, and Doe had very little, if any, prospect of ever returning to Cambodia. Thus, in 2004 New York had as much legal interest in who should adopt Doe as Cambodia. ERJ's fatal error was ignoring the premise that Cambodia's position on the status of it own citizen was at least entitled to some recognition in New York.

Once the Cambodian adoption was given effect however, LMB's subsequent surrender of his parental rights was governed by New York, not Cambodian law. Since LBM's surrender of his parental rights was improper under New York law, it was declared void. The Court held that “when New York parents have acquired, by virtue of a foreign country adoption, parental rights that are recognized in New York, those rights can no longer depend on the vagaries of a foreign country's law”.

[The court gave no weight to ERJ's “act of state” argument and rejected her “best interest of the child” argument by pointing out that the child's best interest do not “automatically” validate an “otherwise illegal adoption” and the father's rights cannot be ignored because a court thinks the child should be adopted by someone else.]

This opinion bears close reading reading because the issues are sure to appear again in different factual and legal situations. The most important principle to remember is that once a foreign adoption is finalized, the law of the state where the child resides controls all future legal decision-making about that child. Adoptive parents will not be allowed to return to the country where the adoption was originally finalized to make any changes concerning the child's custody, guardianship or legal parents. What the Court did not decide is what would happen if the original foreign decree was illegal, invalid or procured by fraud or corruption. That issue will have to wait for another day which will surely come soon.

Guest analysis by Harvey Schweitzer, Esq.

Mr. Schweitzer is a lawyer whose practice in Washington D.C. and Maryland focuses on legal matters pertaining to children and the provision of services to children including foster care, child abuse and neglect, adoption,custody and mandatory reporting. He is the co-author of Foster Care Law: A Primer. Contact him at harvey@schweitzerlaw.net or go to www.schweitzerlaw.net

This just in from blogger Jeff Katz of the Huffington Post:

The simple fact is that it is virtually impossible to adopt a foster child across state lines in the United States.

In the most recent year for which we have data, states reported that only 71 children in the entire country were adopted from foster care across state lines by non-relatives.

Why is interstate adoption so rare? The primary reason is that we do not have a national adoption system. Instead, we have 50 different child welfare systems, each with its own process for adoption eligibility, recruitment, approval, and training.

Even worse, our current system has created profound disincentives for states to facilitate and support adoptions across state lines.

It is a national scandal that 25,000 children age out of foster care each year while willing adoptive parents are ignored because they are in the wrong state or even the wrong county. It shouldn't be harder for a New Jersey family to adopt a child from Manhattan than Moscow. We must change the incentives in our adoption system so that everyone wins when a hurt child finds a forever family.

Check out the complete post here.

Look who's back! Was it adoption for love? Child trafficking via surrogacy? Or something else? The bizarre case of birdman Stephen Melinger is back in the news, this time in a New York Times article on the perils and pitfalls of surrogacy. Do check out this story in the Times, but just remember from Melinger to womb outsourcing, snowflake adoptions and sperm donor introductions for lesbians, this blog gave you the scoop first.

An interesting article about the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act [FCPA] made me think about international adoption agencies and their criminal liability under this federal law. According to the article FCPA, which was enacted in 1977, prohibits bribery of foreign officials. The authors offer this sage advice:

In this climate of increased enforcement, it is imperative that firms doing business in foreign markets, both currently and in the future, become familiar with the FCPA. Both the anti-bribery and books-and-records provisions present significant issues for any company doing business abroad.

In general terms, the FCPA's anti-bribery provisions prohibit companies and individuals from making payments -- or offering or promising to pay money or anything of value -- to any foreign official with the purpose of inducing the recipient to misuse his official position by directing business to or maintaining business with the payor. The anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA apply to . . . any citizen, national or resident of the United States; any entity organized under the laws of any state or U.S. territory; U.S. persons who commit acts of bribery outside of the U.S.; . . . and U.S. and foreign agents of any of these persons or entities.

Hmmmmm. This law sounds like it was MADE for the international adoption oligarchy and, in a serious note of caution for all would-be adoptive parents, those unwittingly caught in its grasp. Let's read on:

To create FCPA liability, the purpose of the payment or promise in question must have been to induce a foreign official to misuse his position. Significantly, however, the FCPA does not require the payment to actually succeed in its purpose. Companies and individuals that violate the FCPA's anti-bribery provisions are subject to impositions of fines and orders for forfeiture of assets derived from the corrupt activity.

In addition to fines and asset forfeitures, an individual convicted for violation of the anti-bribery provisions may be sentenced to prison term of up to five years.

Now that should wake you up! One international adoption agency distributed this memo entitled "Gifts for Russia" in which they clearly state (as if anyone was wondering): "These are gifts, not bribes. Gifts are part of the Russian way of doing business. With the gifts, you are recognizing the status of the people you are dealing with, and showing your appreciation for the assistance that they are giving you."

Appreciation for the assistance that they are giving you. Solid words, but sound legal advice?

Just remember, as World Child, Inc. warned clients in their agency-parent Memo of Understanding, "your American dollars are very much in demand!" "We suggest you bring a variety of bills, including approximately twenty bills each of $1s, $5s, $10s, $20s, and $50s. The rest can be $100 dollar bills. Bills that are over ten years old, are very wrinkled, or are torn or written upon, will not be acceptable." Acceptable to who?

According to the article:

Although it is clear that the FCPA prohibits bribing foreign officials or their representatives, some less obvious activities may constitute violations of the FCPA as well. Any company doing business abroad should be aware of the following examples of possible violations of the FCPA, particularly in view of the recent increase in enforcement:

• Excessive gift giving or entertaining foreign officials or their representatives.
  
• Allowing foreign officials or their staff to use company facilities for any purpose other than to demonstrate, promote or explain the services that the company provides.
  
• Employing a consultant or agent that has connections to a foreign government or agency, for the purpose of influencing that government's or agency's decisions.
  
• Passing money through an agent or consultant to a foreign official to obtain business or secure an advantage, including consulting or management contracts, or securing certain action on legislation, regulations, or other government activity.

Now I'm sure readers will let me know whether they've heard of anything even remotely similar to these (ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES) in the routine conduct of the business of international adoption. I suggest that if anything you've read here reminds you of anything you've personally experienced, witnessed or directed, call a lawyer, call the FBI, and post a comment.

And I thought corrupting international adoption with money was bad. Now we've got to worry about criminal liability for BRIBES?

Before you get too unsettled, just remember the timeless words of FOA (friend of adoption) Debbie Spivack, writing on the Focus on Adoption listserve in defense of Jeanne Smith's Reaching Out Thru International Adoption agency which placed Russian girl Masha Allen with a pedophile adoptor: "fees are for services to ensure the integrity of the process and keep corruption away." Thank goodness! That'll make a stunning defense to felony criminal charges. With Spivack as your expert witness, even the most vile international adoption agency should be able to beat this rap.

And with all this in mind, the Foreign CORRUPT Practices Act need not worry anyone, least of all internationally adopting parents with crisp one hundred dollar bills stuffed in their suitcases.

Just one more example of how individuals intent on exploiting children are leveraging technology: maybe it was the bird in his pocket or his tattered clothes which were covered with avian feces, but when a 58 year old man arrived at an Indianapolis hospital to pick up his twin medically fragile girls, nurses were concerned that he did not seem to know how to care for the children and planned to drive them back to New Jersey by himself.

The girls, Karen and Kathy Melinger, were born in 2005 from a South Carolina surrogate using a sperm donor and delivered in an Indiana hospital at the direction of an attorney who brokered the arrangement over the Internet. There was no Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (ICPC) because the so-called father, who had to adopt the girls, was temporarily living in Indiana waiting for the adoption to finalize before moving back to New Jersey.

Stephen Melinger is a single man and teacher’s aid who reportedly is not allowed to be in a classroom alone with students. The adoption was approved in 2006 in a rural Indiana court where the surrogate's attorney, Steven C. Litz (who $olicit$ client$ and $urrogate mother$ on the Internet) completed over 20 adoption$ before the $ame judge in the la$t $everal year$.

Now, four years later, Indiana's highest court reversed a lower court ruling that let the New Jersey man adopt the twin girls. The Indiana Supreme Court unanimously said a county court shouldn't have granted the adoption without input from New Jersey officials.

But it let Melinger retain custody of the girls, born in April 2005, until the matter is settled. The ruling means New Jersey child welfare authorities now must assess whether Melinger, who is in his 60s, can provide a safe and stable home for the girls.

The Indianapolis Star repeatedly fought for information about this case and kept up public pressure for years. Their coverage of this story is excellent.

Chinese adoption = human trafficking inside and outside the country according to the NYTimes Link

Welcome to the Dark Side of International Adoption as MotherJones exposes US-India child trafficking corruption Link

Adoption in the U.S. the book! Excellent resource about adoption & its aftermath, law, policy and social aspects @ Link

A fascinating journal article by Professors Daniel Pollack and Mary Eschelbach Hansen:

The anti-discrimination law governing placement of children in foster care and adoption was intended to speed the adoption of Black children who could not be reunited with their families of origin. Only recently have two states been fined for violating this decade-old law. Based on our analysis of administrative data collected by the Children's Bureau of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, we conclude that more vigorous enforcement of the anti-discrimination law in adoption could result in significant gains to Black children. We find that Black children spend more time as legal orphans than children of other races and that transracial placement speeds their adoptions.

Download the entire paper here

National Council for Adoption denounces Evan B. Donaldson's call for open adoption records in unyielding report Link

A federal solution to our international adoption child trafficking mess? This article examines the issues Link