The United States, international adoption, The Hague Convention, and child abuse
- Astakhov confirms commitment to ban adoption of Russian children for U.S. citizens
- The horrifying story of Vanessa Pearce
- Nepal Children's Organization (NCO/Bal Mandir) -- child trafficking, corruption and sexual abuse
- Czech state restricts foreign adoptions, "exports" Romani infants
- Couple worries about $30k it paid adoption agency
- Activists call for tighter laws on adoption
- Peru - misc child trafficking cases
- When an adoptee dies...
- U.S. Failing Over Adoption Laws Says Russia
- The United States and UNICEF wage war against international adoptions
I was reading an article recently posted by Silent1, and the following statements did indeed make me go very silent:
In January of this year, Guatemala stopped all new adoptions to the U.S. indefinitely because the U.S. is not compliant with the Hague Convention.
There is no entity that oversees the adoptions from beginning to end. Instead, various agencies, such as DCF, the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Embassy, assume responsibility for different parts of the process.
The broken-up system has thus become prone to children falling through the cracks, as with Maria Fernanda and her younger sister, Ana Christina. [From: Oviedo agency faces multiple complaints
According to The US State Department pages, after several ratifications, "The United States is now a full member of the Hague Convention, and its provisions will govern intercountry adoptions between the United States and other Convention member countries beginning April 1, 2008." If we are follow the words written by the State Department, we have a (one, single) central authority that oversees all intercountry adoptions.
Beginning April 1, 2008, The Hague Convention will govern intercountry adoptions between the United States and other Convention countries. The major changes to the way intercountry adoptions are processed under the Hague Convention are:
- The Department of State, designated as the "Central Authority" for the United States under the Hague Convention and the IAA, is responsible for ensuring that the Hague Convention and IAA requirements are followed.
- Accrediting entities designated by the Department of State must accredit any U.S. adoption service providers that will handle Convention adoption cases.
- The Department of State will maintain a centralized registry to track all adoption cases (both incoming and outgoing cases, in Hague Convention cases and in non-Convention cases), and to receive complaints and comments about accredited adoption service providers involved in Hague Convention cases.
- Outgoing intercountry adoption cases from the United States to other Hague Convention countries, such as Canada or Mexico, must also comply with the Convention and the IAA. [From: "United States Ratifies the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption", Dec 12, 2007, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2007/dec/97148.htm ]
Meanwhile, I don't see any new news articles featuring how the United States government is setting standards for all states and all adoption agencies so child trafficking, abuse, pay-offs and profiting (in international adoption) does not take place.
In fact, it seems to me, sending countries are closing adoption doors to the USA (because of the many flaws found within our own adoption/child protection laws), and this door-closing is making receiving PAP's outraged because they are afraid they will not be able to adopt the child promised made by a certain agent/agency.
Am I the only one really confused by/about America's interests in children from other countries?
Am I the only one who hopes every sending country stops sending their children to a country that refuses to take care of it's own child-placement / parenting problems?
Am I the only one who thinks international adoption has more to do with making money and less to do with a country's need to stop child neglect/abuse?
[I'm just sick of reading the many abused adoptee cases that feature children from other countries being hurt and abused by Americans... and I often wonder, "How can that be changed?"]