ABSTRACT
Intercountry Adoption (ICA) has witnessed a severe decline over the past decade. The falling figures present themselves in thousands. This significant drop in adoptions translates into thousands of children being left without homes, without loving parents, without a hopeful future. Currently, not much information is available as to the causes behind such a drastic decline. Scholars and the like have made some speculations, however no information is supported by qualitative or quantitative data as of yet. ICA appears to have received very little attention from the U.S. government regarding its decline and perhaps that is where the problem lies.
In the following pages, I will present information concerning the decline of ICA. Specifically, I will discuss the policies and regulations that govern ICA between the United States and other adoptive countries. In addition, I will present information concerning post adoption services, child trafficking, as well as financial barriers that are indirectly contributing to the decline of ICA. The paper will reflect that certain regulations play a vital role in the decline of ICA and are in desperate need of reform. I will present findings from independent research conducted via the 2017 Intercountry Adoption Survey. The survey allows for credible data, however small the data happens to be, supporting my claim that ICA has been declining due to the policies and regulations that govern it along with additional factors. Lastly, I will make recommendations regarding ICA policies between the U.S. and perspective adoptive countries that will allow ICA to materialize and grow once again. The decline of ICA is an issue I am personally concerned with because of the significant impact it has had on my own life when I was adopted, from Russia, as a teenager. I understand firsthand the importance of ICA and the impact it can have on the children as well as the adoptive parents. It is my hope to shed some light on the decline of ICA and allow for the data collected through my own research to be of use to the ICA community. Perhaps the 2017 Intercountry Adoption Survey could be used to further guide the research development on ICA.
INTRODUCTION
History
The concept of Intercountry Adoption (ICA) was derived shortly after World War II, and was defined as a process by which people adopted children from countries other than their own. Whether by separation or permanent loss, the war left abundance of children abroad homeless and without parents. This provided families with an opportunity to adopt overseas. Recognizing the effects of the war and seeing the high number of children left alone, American citizens were the first to offer their assistance, and so in the 1940’s ICA was introduced (Liem, 2005).
ICA spiked even more during the Korean War in the1950’s, making Korean children the largest number of foreign adoptees until the 1990’s (Liem, 2005). In 1991 the Soviet Union collapsed and allowed for further adoption opportunities. The number of adopted children from Russia kept rising from the 1990’s, reaching its highest number of 5,862 adopted children in 2004 (Allen, 2012). However, those numbers began to decline, dropping to 1,857 children being adopted in 2008 and only 2 being adopted in 2014. Furthermore, in December of 2012, The Federal Assembly of Russia passed the Dima Yakovlev Law, Federal Law No. 272-FZ, in which an article of the law prohibits American families from being able to adopt children from Russia (Russian, 2012).
The law was named after a Russian boy, who was adopted by an American family. In 2008, Dima Yakovlev was left in a car by his adopted father in the summer heat, and subsequently died (Zemlianichenko, 2012). Two years later, an American mother put her adopted seven-year-old son on an airplane, sending him back to Russia alone (Clehane, 2012). The mother attached a note on the boy’s shirt stating that she did not wish to parent the child, because he was violent and psychopathic (Clehane, 2012). The Russian government did not approve of the way American parents were caring for their adopted children, and stated that it would stop all adoptions by U.S. citizens, until Russia and the U.S. had signed an interstate treaty setting out adoption terms. To officially ban adoptions by U.S. citizens, the Dima Yakovlev Law was passed (Russian, 2012).
However, Russia is not the only country closing its doors to adoptions by American families. Several other countries are showing less interest in ICA as well. The top five countries from which ICA took place over the past several years, such as South Korea, Ethiopia, China, Guatemala, Ukraine, and so forth, are showing a rapid decline in ICA (U.S. Department of State, 2017, Convention). Furthermore, receiving countries other than the U.S. are also experiencing the decline of ICA. The top nine receiving countries, such as Italy, Spain, France, Canada, Sweden, Netherlands, Germany, Denmark, and Switzerland, have all experienced a steady decline between the years 2005 and 2015 (Selman, 2017). Sweden has experienced a decline in ICA of 69%, France of 76%, Netherlands of 76%, Spain of 85%, Switzerland of 65%, and the list goes on (Selman, 2017). ). ICA declining by thousands, is as much astonishing as it is concerning. ICA is presented with a great problem, and based on the findings from independent research; it would appear that the problem lies in the current policies and regulations that govern it.
Statement of the Problem
In reviewing the history of ICA laws, evidence shows that although ICA was taking place since the 1940’s, formal adoption laws were not passed until the 1980’s, when legal problems with ICA became more apparent (Allen, 2012). Due to the minimum standards that were required to adopt, adopted children were being frequently abused and neglected. The Hague Adoption Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (Hague Adoption Convention) was the first official ICA agreement created in 1993 (Briscoe, 2009). This international treaty aims to “establish safeguards to ensure that Intercountry Adoptions take place in the best interests of the child” through “establishment of safe practices and procedures in international adoptions” (Briscoe, 2009). In 1993, 66 countries accepted this multilateral treaty, and even more countries joined it since then, totaling 97 nations to this day (U.S. Department of State, 2017, Convention). The Hague Adoption Convention governs only those adoptions that take place between countries that have ratified it; all other countries operate under a set of rules and regulations established by individual countries (Bartholet, 2005). In other words, all the countries that are not a part of the Hague Adoption Convention, abide by their individual set of rules, each country differing in its laws and regulations from each other.
The U.S. joined the Hague Adoption Convention in 1994, and ratified it with the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (IAA) (Aranguren, 2013). The purpose of the IAA ratification was to ensure the best interest of the child, but also to address the problems of child trafficking, coerced adoptions, and inappropriate financial gain (Croft, 2005). It was also established so that the federal government could better assist its citizens, who wished to adopt internationally (Aranguren, 2013). The IAA designates the Department of State (DOS) as the U.S. Central Authority, who is responsible for ensuring that the U.S. meets the requirements set forth by the Hague Adoption Convention (Croft, 2005). In addition to the IAA, President Bill Clinton signed into law H.R. 2883, the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 (FAQ). The law, Public Law 106-395, amended the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) which permits foreign-born children, including adopted children, to acquire citizenship automatically when certain requirements are met, such as age, residing lawfully in the U.S., and so forth (Department of State, 2017, FAQ). The Hague Adoption Convention became fully enforced in the United States, in April of 2008 (USCIS, 2017, Hague).
No laws or regulations have been passed in the U.S., or have been amended, since that time. In other words, it has been almost a decade since the last involvement by the government in ICA. ICA is declining in the thousands, but, there have been no discussions of it by the government officials, no action has taken place to expand it’s awareness, and no action has been taken to even attempt to resolve it. Clearly, the current situation faced by the ICA is not one that can sustain itself. ICA is in need of answers. What is the cause behind its decline? Certain literature as well as a survey conducted by me, point to the policies and regulations as being the main reasons behind the decline of ICA, specifically the Hague Adoption Convention implemented by the U.S., as well as other countries. For the purposes of this project, the discussion regarding the decline in ICA is aimed at the United States as the receiving country. The root causes behind the decline for other receiving countries could very based on different demographics; hence, this project is focused on ICA in the United States. It is important to note that ICA is falling in numbers in other parts of the world as well. The countries that are affected by the ICA decline are a part of the Hague Adoption Convention, hence a correlation could exist between the Hague Regulations and ICA for those countries as well.
Review of Laws and Regulations
For the purposes of this project, it was essential to focus on the ICA, which is governed by the Hague Adoption Convention. It was important to stay consistent in the discussion of the countries that adhere to the same laws and regulations, so as to be able to conclude whether or not the regulations have impacted the decline of ICA. . It was also important to focus on one adoption process over another. Countries that adhere to the Hague Adoption Convention essentially follow the same process, with elements that apply to all of the countries that function under it. The countries that adhere to The Hague Adoption Convention are known as the Convention Countries, and that is the term used to refer to them throughout the paper (U.S. Department of State, 2017, Convention). The adoption process of the Convention Countries is the same for all countries that adhere to it, which means that everything from the paperwork to home study to receiving of the child, is the same across the board on the side of the receiving country, which in this case is the United States. One thing should be noted is that receiving countries follow the same rules set forth by the Hague Convention, however, the sending countries may have additional requirements set forth by their own countries. Hence, the overall process may differ due to the sending countries regulations.
As mentioned earlier, in order to ensure that the adoption process is safeguarded, the Convention Countries have an established Central Authority. A branch of the DOS, titled the Office of Children’s Issues (OCI), serves as the Central Authority in the U.S. (U.S. Department of State, 2017, Our). It is this branch that outlines the adoption process, connects with perspective countries, “produces country specific information, monitors complains concerning ICA, and works with the U.S. government entities on developing and amending adoption laws and regulations” (U.S. Department of State, 2017, Our). OCI is also the branch that is responsible for monitoring Adoption Service Providers (ASP), the agencies that work directly with the perspective parents. Perspective parents connect with an ASP, who guides the parents through the Hague adoption process. In order for an ASP to be able to assist perspective parents, however, they must hold a Hague Accreditation and Approval status (USCIS, 2017, Hague Process). The Hague Accreditation is a requirement set by the OCI, and must be upheld in order for the ASP to operate.
Once an ASP has been established, perspective parents go through a rather rigorous process. The ASP conducts a home study, and upon the approval of the home study, the adoptive parents submit an application to the USCIS to determine whether they are fit for ICA. If approved, parents then work with the ASP in forming their adoption placement. Parents may be required to travel several times to their perspective child’s country of origin, where they meet the child in person and make a decision as to whether they want the child to be a part of their family. Once the parents are certain of their intentions, they work with the ASP in finalizing the adoption. Perspective parents “file a “petition” with USCIS, before adopting a child, to have the child be found eligible to immigrate to the United States based on the proposed adoption” (USCIS, 2017, Hague Process). The ASP works with the parents in collecting the different documents that are required by the U.S., as well as the country from which they are adopting. Adoptive parents may go through a trial proceeding, in the child’s country of origin, before the adoption process is considered final by that country’s regulations. Once the child has been adopted, an immigrant visa is obtained and the adoptive parents are then able to bring the child to the United States, for admission, with the visa (USCIS, 2017, Hague Process).
Literature Review
In order to better understand the current situation facing ICA and develop an appropriate method of study for my project, it was important to consider written works by different authors and professionals. One of the articles, which was written before the ratification of the Hague Adoption Convention in the U.S., “The III Effects of a United States Ratification of the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-Operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption” (Croft, 2005) reflected on the different effects the Hague Adoption Convention could potentially have on ICA. The author, Gina Croft, wrote that the ratification of the Hague Adoption Convention could have negative implications on the culture of ICA. She believed that the implementation of the new laws and regulations would result in new costs to the adoption agencies via “accreditation charges and fees to the Secretary of State” as well as the fees associated with “extensive record keeping and reporting to the USCA” (Croft, 2005). Likewise, the Hague Adoption Convention entails a great amount of details that the Central Authorities must convey to the ASP’s and continuously follow up on, such as overseeing “adoption counseling”, “post adoption services”, “exchange evaluation reports”, and so forth (Croft, 2005). Croft stated that these procedures, no matter how small they may seem, would take up time and resources that most states do not have, thus adding to the already complicated adoption practices (2005).
Croft was correct in her assessment of the consequences in implementing the Hague Adoption Convention. The survey responses provided by the ASP’s confirm the addition of expenses, the complicated adoption processes, and additional requirements imposed on ASP’s. All of the respondents confirmed that the regulations cause an increase in fees, the regulations are more complex to comprehend and implement, and agencies do not have the resources to comply with the standards being imposed by the Hague Adoption Convention.
Croft is not the only one who expressed concerns regarding the Hague Adoption Convention. Erica Briscoe, author of “The Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-Operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption: Are Its Benefits Overshadowed by Its Shortcomings?” (2009) wrote that modifications to the treaty are needed. For example, according to the author (2009), many terms of the Hague Adoption Convention are left to the interpretation by the countries that adhere to it. The treaty does not discuss the meaning behind phrases such as “public policy”, leaving it to the interpretation by the member countries. Briscoe argues that the interpretations could vary significantly from country to country and “could be used to advance very different public policies and any kind of agenda that those states may be trying to advance” (2009). In other words, there appears to be too much flexibility in the interpretation of certain vocabulary and that flexibility is causing more confusion than it should. Likewise, Briscoe argues that Central Authorities of each country are bearing the sole responsibility of enforcing the standards concerning the ICA process and international adoption laws (2009). This means that each country “retain(s) sovereignty over its own international adoption law”, one country differing from another, which further complicates the adoption process (Briscoe, 2009).
All ICAs have to work with laws of two different countries, the receiving country and the sending country. Subjecting an adoption to two different international laws and regulations becomes very complicated and time consuming. Several survey participants conformed that the laws and regulations set forth by the Hague Adoption Convention are not clear and are in need of modification. The standards to which member states adhere to are not uniform, they are modified by individual countries so as to fit their own regulatory principles, once again making the ICA that much more confusing. It is clear that many organizations have to work together, communicate with each other, and be respectful of one another if an ICA is to be successful. Currently, communication is lacking at best, there is too much misinterpretation and misunderstanding as far as the regulations are concerned. I am certain that all of the organizations involved with ICA share the same goals, making sure that orphaned children receive a loving home, however the approach to the goals is conflicting between the departments, particularly whiting the U.S. itself.
Similar concerns are addressed by authors Soohyun Kim and Carrie Smith in an article titled “Analysis of Intercountry Adoption Policy and Regulations: The case of Korea” (2009). In this article, the authors discuss “the need for continuing modification of international laws and regulations” due to the fact that international adoptions involve different countries, “different laws as well as authorities that must be consulted with,” and cultural issues (Kim, Smith, 2009). The authors make excellent points, points that are similar to the concerns mentioned by previous authors as well as survey participants. In addition to the modifications of the laws, the authors state that current post-adoption services are not adequate and do not meet the needs of the families and adopted children (2009). Because ICA’s often involve culturally diverse families, the need for post adoption services is more prevalent than in domestic adoptions. Diverse cultural differences contribute to lower self-esteem and “psychological competence” in adopted children, hence the need for services that may address such issues is imperative (2009). This is also confirmed by the survey responders who stated that currently there are not enough services and recourses to support families who are facing difficulties post-adoption. Even if services are available, services such as counseling and therapy, are often expensive and not affordable by most families. The ICA community is struggling. It is in need of change. It is in need for someone to recognize that the problems are genuine and address them accordingly.
METHOD
Background Information
As one might have noticed, ICA is a very complex issue with different components that must work together to achieve great results. As mentioned earlier, not much information is documented to address the particular causes behind the decline of ICA. Therefore, to determine the main causes behind the decline in ICA, I created a twenty-question survey tailored toward the issue. The questions were formulated with a multiple-choice answer, as well as open-ended questions that allowed the respondents to provide answers based on professional opinion and expertise. The questions addressed financial concerns regarding ICA, the availability of post adoption services, the regulations that govern ICA, as well as the number of children available for adoption. It was important to address all of these concerns so as to better understand the role each component plays in the ICA community and to narrow down the main causes behind the falling numbers concerning ICA.
Participants
The survey itself was targeting ASP’s that offer ICA services, adhere to the Hague Adoption Convention standards, and maintain Hague Accreditation and Approval status through the Council on Accreditation. In order to better regulate the adoption process in adherence to the Hague Adoption Convention, the OCI has designated the Council on Accreditation (COA) to accredit and oversee all Hague accredited adoption agencies in the U.S. Hence, the survey was sent to the agencies that met the criteria stated above. The survey was accompanied by a cover letter, which addressed the subject matter, introduced myself, as well as provided a detailed explanation of one’s voluntary participation, consent, and the option to chose not to participate in the survey. The 2017 Intercountry Adoption Survey was sent via USPS, which included a return stamped envelope addressed to myself and sent to a P.O. Box I obtained through the USPS. No one other than myself had access to this P.O.Box and all information obtained was kept confidential.
Analysis of 2017 Intercountry Adoption Survey
As mentioned earlier, the questions in the survey were written to address concerns that might have had an affect on the decline of ICA, such as financial barriers, access and availability to post adoption services, availability of children for adoption, regulations, and so forth. The survey was sent out to eighteen agencies. One survey came back to me due to mailing error, five agencies responded to the questions, and twelve agencies chose not to participate. Due to the low response rate, I cannot draw a definitive answer, however, the information gathered from the responses is still valuable in providing direction for further research. Regardless of how small the response rate happened to be, based on the findings from the 2017 Intercountry Adoption Survey, it appears that the DOS as well as the Hague Adoption Convention are the main entities that are responsible for the decline of ICA. These entities were developed to promote healthy adoption practices, but unfortunately have become the reasons why ICA is declining by the thousands.
The five agencies that responded provided exceptional insight into the world of ICA. All five agencies have been providing ICA services for ten years or more, and all five of them stated that they have witnessed a decline in ICA. When asked what the barriers to ICA appear to be, the agencies stated that the barriers lie in the increase of regulations, Hague Adoption Convention, the DOS, UNICEF, and even the Adoption Tax Credit. When asked whether or not the decline in ICA can be greatly attributed to an increase in regulations, four agencies answered “yes” and one agency answered “somewhat.” Furthermore, when asked if the regulations have affected ICA in such a way as to cause their decline all five participants responded with “yes.” It is fair to say that regulations appear to be a major concern when addressing the decline of ICA. Additionally, when asked an open ended question regarding the biggest causes for decrease in ICA, agencies responded with answers such as “regulations and overreach by the Dept. of State”, “the Hague Convention-its interpretation and regulation by DOS”, and “our own DOS refusing to advocate and rather they have cast suspicion and created an advocacy for permanent orphan care and foster care-when the solution is adoption.” All five agencies attributed the decline of ICA to the DOS in some extent. Most of the responses provided by the participants pointed to the DOS and the interpretation of the Hague Adoption Convention. This cannot be a coincidence; something is definitely amiss between the regulations, the government entities that implement them, and the agencies providing ICA services. Furthermore, when an agency responds with “We believe DOS actively advocates against ICA”, it is a strong indication that a major problem is within the DOS itself. However, no actions have been taken to address these concerns and the ramifications of that is thousands of children being left without permanent loving homes.
In addition to the DOS, the regulations set forth by the Hague Adoption Convention appear to be a major hindrance in the growth of ICA. One agency wrote, in response to the question regarding barriers to ICA, “Federal, international and state regulations imposed on agencies which increases the processing time and expense for families.” Another respondent wrote “Hague convention regulation process. It could be more efficient.” It appears that the agencies are struggling with the interpretation of the regulations as well as how to best implement them. Although the agencies did not provide any specific details as to how the DOS is interpreting the regulations or what aspects of them are most difficult to implement, it is clear that the agencies themselves are struggling to comply with the regulations. If an agency is being affected by the Hague Adoption Convention in such a way as to not being able to provide etiquette services to perspective parents then it can certainly contribute to the decline in ICA. One participant stated that there is a cost associated with implementing these regulations and “the cost to an agency to remain compliant continues to rise with each new requirement and that is passed on to the families in services fees” because the agencies do not have the appropriate funding to offset these fees. When asked how much of an impact the cost of ICA has had on the decrease of ICA, two agencies responded with “no impact at all”, one stated “somewhat little impact”, another stated “somewhat large impact”, and one responded with “very large.” Based on these responses, it would be fair to say that no matter how much the regulations are affecting adoption costs, the costs themselves may not be directly associated with the decline of ICA. Unfortunately, the answer to whether the financial barriers have contributed to the decline of ICA was not conclusive due to the different responses provided. Perhaps a larger answer pool would have offered a more guided answer.
When considering whether the post adoption services have had an impact on the decline of ICA, the participants responded that services are available, however most adoptive families choose not to use them or the services are not affordable. All agencies agreed on the fact that families experience some degree of difficulty post adoption. All five agencies offer support either directly to the families or by way of referrals. The support includes counseling, education, access to on line and in person support groups, and so forth. One participant stated that the support for post adoption is lacking. Families are often in need of therapy and mental health services which are “very expensive and many insurance companies limit the use of the services…” Therefore, families do not obtain adequate services and that hinders the experience of ICA. Despite the need for more post adoption services the survey did not provide any indication that there is a correlation or a causation relationship between post adoption experience and the decline in ICA.
In addition to the regulations, financial concerns, and post adoption services, the survey included questions regarding child trafficking and whether or not it had an impact on the decline of ICA. Two of the participants stated “no”, two stated “not sure”, and one stated, “yes.” The agency that answered “yes”, expanded on the question with the following “the myth of child trafficking has caused the need for more regulations and false assumptions that all agencies are corrupt, when in fact very few cases have ever been found to be fraudulent…” The respondents provided no other information regarding child trafficking. Because the provided answers were inconsistent between the agencies, no conclusion can be drawn whether or not child trafficking is responsible for the decline in ICA. When asked whether agencies have witnessed a decline in the number of children available for adoption, three participants answered “no”, two answered, “yes”, resulting in 80% confirmation that there are an abundance of children to adopt and if adoptions are not taking place it is due to factors other than the availability of eligible children.
Drawing from the responses provided by the participants in the survey, it would be fair to say that the causes behind the decline of ICA point to the DOS as well as the Hague Adoption Convention. When asked what the agencies would like to see from the legislators regarding ICA, one response was “For them to do an overhaul of DOS, Office of Children’s Issues. Put someone in place that will work with agencies and work for the better of the child”, another was “I would like our legislators call for a change in OCI leadership and replaced with experience Intercountry adoption professionals that supports and promotes adoption first-as the mission states and congress intended”, and another “Drop out of Hague!” These responses are powerful in that they indicate the current problems associated with ICA. The agencies that provided these answers are well versed and experienced in the matters concerning ICA. They are open to new regulations and requirements as long as the requirements serve their intended purpose. ASP’s function with a purpose of brining families together and I am sure they share this goal with everyone who becomes involved in the adoption process. Hence, the concerns they addressed in the survey responses should be appropriately addressed and given serious attention to. At this point in time, it appears as though the agencies are not receiving the support and guidance they need from the DOS or any part of government branch.
Recommendations
Before I make recommendations as to the solutions to the current decline of ICA, I want to clarify that because the response rate of the 2017 Intercountry Adoption Survey was low, no definitive answer can be drawn. However, those same responses provide a sense of direction as to where the problems might be and where to take the research of ICA next. Upon reflecting on the survey responses as well as the literature review, despite the low response rate, the causes behind the decline in ICA appear to lay mainly within the Hague Adoption Convention and the agencies that oversee the implementation of the regulations, such as the DOS and OCI. Hence, in order for ICA to pick up and to remain a more popular alternative for placing children in loving homes, several changes must be made.
For example, an author mentioned earlier in the paper, Erica Briscoe (2009) recommends amendments to the Hague Adoption Convention. In particular, she calls for “modifications addressing many fundamental issues that are crucial to the success of establishing guidelines for safe Intercountry adoptions…” (Briscoe, 2009). Briscoe acknowledges that it would be impractical for the Hague Adoption Convention to lay out “exact procedures” to be followed by all countries that adhere to it, however, she calls for “some sort of minimum standard for the control from which the individual member countries could base their standards” (2009). Briscoe is not the only one advocating for modification to the current regulations, authors Kim and Smith (2009), advocate for “uniform international laws”, as well as for ICA’s to be regulated “through the international community rather than only through individual nations…” Currently, the regulations are confusing and unclear, and are not serving the ICA community with the purpose they were envisioned. Throughout the paper, survey participants as well as authors of the literature reviews made references to the lack of clear regulations and uniformity in them. Hence, one solution to the decline of ICA is to restructure and reorganize the regulations within the Hague Adoption Convention. The ICA would benefit from more standardized rules in relation to the participating countries. It would benefit from an outline of minimum standards, which would apply to all of the participating members of the Hague Adoption Convention. Instead of leaving the interpretation of the regulations to the individual countries, which causes only confusion, a more permanent set of standards should be in place. I would urge the member countries to reconvene on the subject matter and reevaluate current adoption practices. I believe the U. S. should be the one to initiate the process and call for an assembly to address these issues. The government of the U.S. is well respected and has the means to bring about significant reform if it so desired. ASP’s are in need of clarification and support. Making changes to the current procedures would be a major step in allowing ICA to materialize once again.
Furthermore, it would appear that the DOS is just as important in contributing to the success of ICAs. Therefore, it is crucial for the OCI to work closely with the ASP’s in implementing the regulations. I cannot confirm whether or not the “DOS actively advocates against ICA”, however, when such strong statements are made by parties actively involved in making ICA possible, they should not be taken lightly. Some investigation should be conducted in order to clarify where miscommunication is taking place, what actions have encouraged ASPs to feel unsupported by the DOS. Clearly, somewhere in the process a link is missing and in order for ICA to function to its full capacity, that link must be found and resolved. The process of adoption affects families who wish to have children and children who wish for safe homes. Hence, it is important that the process is run as smoothly as it can, because it is already difficult due to the many challenges discussed throughout this paper. The entities that are in charge of making ICAs happen should not be in conflict with each other, rather, they should be each other’s support, provide each other with stability, and be a solid foundation for those who are interested in pursuing ICA.
CONCLUSION
ICA adoption has existed for many years. However, in the past decade or so, the decline in ICA is becoming worrisome for many. It is worrisome for parents who are interested in adopting, it is worrisome for agencies that work very hard to make adoptions successful, and it is worrisome for children who are in desperate need of permanent homes. Speaking from personal experience, children who are placed for adoptions are children who have no one, no parents to look after them and no relatives who care to keep them. Hence, adoption is the only chance for them to have a shot at a normal life, a life where they are cared for, nurtured, and loved, as children should be. It is the responsibility of the people to make sure that such a chance continues to be available. If everything remains as is, adoption agencies predict only further decline in the ICA. Hence, it is the responsibility of our government and the member states to advocate for better adoption practices. The decline of ICA should be the exception not the norm.
Based on the information found in this paper, it is clear that there exits a problem in the ICA community. Regulations appeared to be a major concern among the literature reviews as well as the respondents who participated in the survey. The agencies that govern the adoption process are also being questioned. There appears to be a disconnect between DOS and the ASPs, which is not ideal when the two entities must collaborate and cooperate with each other. Certainly, other factors may be contributing to the continuous decline in ICA but were not as apparent among the collected material; however, I believe the direction of where changes should begin has been identified. ICA is in dire need of change and it needs to begin with the regulations that govern it. It is crucial for everyone involved in the ICA process to stand together, to ask questions and to demand change.
References
Allen, Cheryl L. The US-Russian Child Adoption Agreement: An End to Failed
Adoptions?, 35 Fordham Int’l L.J. 1690 (2012) Retrieved April 6, 2016, from
http://fordhamilj.org/articles/the-us-russian-child-adoption-agreement-an-end-to
-failed-adoptions/
Briscoe, E. (2009). The Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-Operation
in Respect of Intercountry Adoption: Are Its Benefits Overshadowed by Its
Shortcomings?. Journal Of The American Academy Of Matrimonial Lawyers,
22(2), 437-460.
Clehane, D. (2012, May 31). U.S. Mother Who ‘Returned’ Her Adopted Son To Russia
Ordered To Pay Child Support. Retrieved April 14, 2016, from
http://www.forbes.com/sites/dianeclehane/2012/05/31/u-s-mother-who-returned-
her-adopted-son-to-russia-ordered-to-pay-child-support/#434e70c3ae6e
Croft, G. a. (2005). The Ill Effects of a United States Ratification of the Hague
Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of
Intercountry Adoption. Georgia Journal Of International & Comparative
Law, 33(3), 621-653.
Kim, S., & Smith, C. J. (2009). Analysis of intercountry adoption policy and regulations:
The case of Korea. Children & Youth Services Review, 31(8), 911-918.
Liem, D. B. (2005, May 12). Overview of International Adoption. Retrieved from:
http://www.pbs.org/pov/archive/firstpersonplural/historical/intadoptions.html
Russian State Duma. Dima Yakovlev Law. Moscow: December 26, 2012.
Selman, P. (2017) Global Statistics for Intercountry Adoption: Receiving States and
States of Origin 2004-2015. Retrieved November 12, 2017 from:
https://assets.hcch.net/docs/a8fe9f19-23e6-40c2-855e-388e112bf1f5.pdf
U.S. Department of State. 2017. “Convention Countries.”
Retrieved November 1, 2017, from
https://travel.state.gov/content/adoptionsabroad/en/hague-convention/convention-
countries.html
__. 2017 b. “FAQ: Child Citizenship Act of 2000.” Retrieved October 28, 2017 from
https://travel.state.gov/content/adoptionsabroad/en/adoption-process/faqs/child-
citizenship-act-of-2000.html
__.2017c. “Hague vs. Non-Hague Adoption Process.” Retrived October 25, 2017 from
https://travel.state.gov/content/adoptionsabroad/en/adoption-process/faqs/hague-
vs-non-hague-adoption-process.html
__. 2017d. “Our Role.” Retrieved October 15, 2017 from
https://travel.state.gov/content/adoptionsabroad/en/about-us/our-role.html
__. 2017e. “Statistics.” Retrieved November 1, 2017, from
https://travel.state.gov/content/adoptionsabroad/en/about-us/statistics.html
USCIS. 2017. “Hague Process.” Retrieved October 2, 2017 from
https://www.uscis.gov/adoption/immigration-through-adoption/hague-process
United States Public Law No. 106-279, 114 Stat. 825. “Intercountry Adoption Act of
2000.” Retrieved October 15, 2017 https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-
106publ279/pdf/PLAW-106publ279.pdf
Zemlianichenko, A.P (2012 December 26) Russia parliament passes anti-US adoption
bill. (n.d.). Retrieved March 15, 2016, from
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/26/16158938-russia-parliament-passes-anti-us-adoption-bill
