Some of you have heard me rant and rave about the horrendous changes that have been pending for years but have finally been put into place in the United States earlier this year (2008).  I was not a proponent of the Hague Convention on Rights and Protection of Children and had attempted to warn the adoption community that this would not ultimately help the most needy of orphaned and abandoned kids in other countries, and might in fact cause them undue harm. My warnings mostly fell on deaf ears.  We are now seeing how Government controls of a field they know little about have already begun to eliminate chances for children. The regulations are also slowly, but surely pushing some excellent agencies in the United States off the map.  While it is true that a few of the agencies are not ones whose questionable practices will be missed, and for whom regulation has probably come too late, for the most part, the agencies being forced to close are the ones who have made a huge difference in the world. They are the champions of the rights of neglected and destitute kids who now will have bleak futures, or in some cases, no futures at all. Some of these agencies have been the victims of a political agenda that has far-reaching implications.

     To add insult to injury, an announcement was made by a professional membership organization to which many quality, licensed adoption agencies belong, including the agency I founded in 1981.  We were informed that any agencies denied accreditation by the Council on Accreditation and the Department of State would also be denied membership next year by this organization.  While not all of us chose to seek this costly accreditation and do not need it to continue to provide certain types of adoption services, some agencies that did apply received denials and were not provided with disclosure as to the reasons for the denials. Some of these were very old and experienced entities with excellent reputations. I know some of the agencies personally and also know some of the founders and leaders in these agencies.  The denials were presumably based on unrevealed reports by unnamed parties. These agencies are having no success in obtaining the information that would allow them to respond and/or to correct any alleged deficiencies. It is outrageous to me that these agencies, who have paid their dues to the membership organization for years, have not had complaints and who have been members in good standing, should be presumed guilty without any type of due process.  I believe that a good number of us who are well known and well respected in the field of adoption will make the decision not to lend further support to the membership organization that has made this policy decision and they will find themselves with a huge decrease in supporters and available funds for operation.

     I will follow this up with a couple of posts from colleagues of mine.  Hannah Wallace of Adoptions International in Philadelphia is a passionate and articulate advocate for children, families and for adoption. If you are interested, you may read her response to the announcement that further rocked the US adoption community today.

A post from my esteemed colleague, Hannah Wallace of Adoptions International in Philadelphia (With permission)

There is a shameful period in American History known as the McCarthy Era,  when the Congress of the U.S. participated in a Witch Hunt for anyone suspected of being a Communist or a Communist sympathizer.  People lost their jobs and their reputations,  if they wouldn’t testify or name names,  they were in contempt of congress and went to jail. For a period of time, any who resisted them became suspect. There was a rule of fear in our government.

As Tom DiFilipo of the Joint Council on International Children’s Services states, the COA Accredition is viewed by most as the “gold standard”.  On the other hand, JC knows that the process has not been consistent, transparent, nor fair. It is rumored that a “hit list” was provided to DOS and COA.  I don’t know whether the agencies who were denied were denied for serious ethical violations or not.  No one knows, including those agencies since they haven’t been told why they were denied.  To me, that is injustice and lack of due process. Now the assumption of guilt is being promoted even by some who have been denied accreditation.

I understand the dilemna that JC is facing in maintaining meaningful membership standards.  However, until COA and DOS would be transparent in their reasons for denying accreditation, and those agencies would have an opportunity to rebut any charges against them, I believe it is absolutely unethical to allow these denials to dictate JC membership policies.  JC should be advocating for a meaningful and transparent accreditation process for members,  not going with the “assumption” of guilt.

I would like to call your attention to an excellent article by Joseph Crumbley, DSW.   It is called, Transracial Adoption: Love Is Not Enough.

Check it out at http://library.adoption.com/Interracial-Multicultural-Adoption/Transracial-A
doption-Love-Is-Not-Enough/article/3054/1.html.

Well said, Dr. Crumbley, and my 37 plus years of raising my multi-cultural family has shown all of this to be ultra important!  I strongly agree with the contents of this article. The adoption agency I founded and directed for more than 27 years now, has always taken extremely seriously our role to prepare and educate prospective parents for the complex undertaking of adopting a child, and particularly one of a different race or ethnicity. Adoption is a lifelong process, as the article points out and no, love is not enough.

Following is an excerpt from the article:

“Desirable capabilities for transracial parents include:

Understanding of their own personal history and how it helped to form their values and attitudes about racial, cultural and religious similarities and differences

Understanding of racism, how it works and how to minimize its effects

Empathy with children’s birth families regardless of cultural, lifestyle or socioeconomic differences

Ability and commitment to provide for their child racial and cultural experiences as well as information and knowledge about his or her race and culture

Availability of a strong support system

Ability and willingness to make available to their child same race adult and peer role models and relationships

Acknowledgement that interracial adoption will make their family part of a minority group AND that they will experience discrimination as do other minorities

Interest in and ability to learn skills to care for the child’s skin, hair and health

Appreciation of the child’s uniqueness while instilling a sense of belonging and full family membership

It is true that love is not enough to make any adoptive placement successful. However, without unconditional commitment and the development of love, a placement will not succeed. One of the best things parents can do for children is simply enjoy them, to treasure and celebrate likenesses and differences and to let them know that they are wonderful people.”

July 23, 2008

While the general public may not be aware, except when stumbling across the negative media stories that are slanted and don’t give the entire picture, the field of international adoptions is experiencing a crisis. This is one that many of us predicted a good ten or more years ago, when talk of the US implementing the Hague Convention on Rights and Protection of Children in Adoption first surfaced. The US implemented this in April of 2008 and for those of us who have not been total supporters, our worst fears have been realized. The lack of oversight of the chosen accrediting bodies (Agencies were given the choice of becoming accredited to work with other Hague countries, or to work in conjunction with other larger agencies and to continue as local service providers for clients) has created an unequal playing field. Many agencies have complained of unfair treatment by the main accrediting body but have not received full disclosure of reasons for deviation from regulated standards. Many agencies worked very hard, received their Hague accreditation and are sorry they did it, as there has been a restriction in available programs from which to place children. This does not mean there is no need. There are children in unimaginably dreadful situations who desperately need loving permanent families.   Some good agencies have been denied accreditation for unclear reasons and some agencies that did not necessarily have good reputations among the larger adoption community were accredited.  Now there seems to be a push by the Department of State to favor large agencies, to eliminate smaller ones and to remove freedom of choice from the US consumer of adoption services (again, as previously predicted in the past,  but vociferously denied would occur).

Though adoption agencies that are not Hague accredited are not restricted by law from cooperating directly with adoption programs in non-Hague participating countries, it appears that this could also be in jeopardy in spite of this not being on the table previously. The  US DOS and certain other groups seem to be exerting pressure on other countries to become Hague Adoption members and to refuse to work with perfectly reputable and legitimate adoption providers who have been in business for years, are known for quality services, ethics and humanitarian aid to needy children. 

There are those of us in the professional adoption community who are frankly horrified at the pressure of one or more private groups, in emulation of our own government’s strong arm tactics to make everyone else in the world operate according to our beliefs, polices and practices. Boston University Professor, Bob Bascevitz mentions what he sees as our “Imperial Presidency” and how “nothing in the Constitution talks about making the world in our own image”.  He says, “I call that a fool’s errand… To the extent that we persist in our imperial delusions, we compromise our freedom.”  This definitely seems to be true in the world of international adoption, as we slowly insist that every country take our lead and conform to our ways, whether or not this is the right path for them and for their children.

This past week, several Internet lists for professional members of the Joint Council on International Children’s Services have been vibrating with strong opinions, anger and attacks. I have been thinking that I want to acknowledge everyone who has taken the time to post about our strong opinions on the directions that our industry, and JCICS have taken. Change is always highly difficult and these are huge changes that will have an impact on children, families and on our agencies well into the future.

The posts over the past days have reflected our struggles with these changes. Many of us don’t like what we see looming on the adoption horizon. Some of us who are now described as “dinosaurs” in the adoption field are feeling that our investment of years of sacrifices and hard work for the benefit of the world’s children is being somehow devalued or threatened. Some are struggling with finding the most effective and realistic means of survival so that we can continue to provide meaningful services to those who most need them. We are horrified at what we see as potential consequences to the future of so many children in so many countries.

There are those in our community who view the creation of the new standards of practice as a positive step in shaping up our industry and ensuring uniformity in service provision in adoption worldwide.

A percentage of adoption providers, though, don’t truly believe that the changes that were initially well-intentioned are actually now positive ones. We have been suspicious of an extra agenda by our own government. We believe we must not accept the status quo and must insist on a level of practice that serves the population this was all carved out to serve.  A number of us are sad, disappointed, worried, or even angry about being forced to comply with regulations that we don’t view as uniformly applied or as totally beneficial.  We might even believe that to continue to practice in the environment we see emerging will mean seriously compromising our integrity.

Nonetheless, we, as non-profits,  (regardless of which side of the fence we sit on about Hague, COA, DOS, or even JCICS policies and practices) are fighting for our lives due to the flagging economy and the impact some of the changes have had, and will continue to have on our ability to stay in business. Most of us have been looking at creative solutions, mergers, and all options in the face of hard, cold realities. The extra efforts involved in either becoming accredited, forging new relationships with other organizations or strengthening old alliances in order to keep on making adoptive placements, has significantly added to our workloads.  We have felt and are feeling the stress that has exponentially increased for adoption providers.

These factors, coupled with our passion about what we do, have caused some to state things strongly, and to ruffle the feathers of others. 

I admit that I am not happy with the direction of our industry, to the degree that I have explored , and pursued several new personal directions simultaneously with examining new options for our agency with our board of directors. I will remain unwavering in insisting on clear and honorable motivations, ethical behavior, accountability and transparent practices by all of us in the adoption field, including our government, in serving children and families. Our agency (Thursday’s Child) has been known for these qualities, as have many other adoption agencies. We need to insist on no less from those who will be overseeing adoption practices, and of any organizations we lend our support and money to as members.

Still, I want to now acknowledge those who made their opinions known on JCICS lists. Each of us has something to contribute to the dialogue and must remain open…… Hannah, in your usual eloquence, flair for words, ability to be an admirable standard bearer, and ability to look at the big picture, you have expressed your thoughts…. Cheryl, your outrage at what you see and believe to be unjust is an understandable extension of the commitment and strength you have shown in charting new and dangerous territory to help children in desperate situations.  Maxine, your astute observations, experience and passions are needed, and,  your willingness to stand up for what is right. Marjorie  from Colorado, your humor, your balance and insights have been valuable and also, Lucy, whose ability seems to be able to see all viewpoints, and to find the good in all of the involved parties…..  Rick, who has taken the time and made the effort to post in behalf of the board of JCICS, but also to respond personally to dissenters, is appreciated by me as well…..and so many others who regularly get into the mix, or who have no longer been able to keep silent.

Many dear friends and trusted colleagues have been vocal, both publicly and privately. These are the most trying times I have experienced in 27 years at our agency, and in about 38 years of involvement in adoption work.   We all need to be acknowledged for what we have done, for the courage to express our distress and dissatisfaction, and for our ability to continue to try to make a difference, within or outside of the existing system.  We might not continue on exactly the same paths we have taken in the past.   As you know, everything in life provides an opportunity for learning. We need to shift our perspectives and look for the lessons and the new opportunities in all of this. Perhaps our roles will change. Perhaps a new one for some in the adoption arena is to be a “change agent” for the very first time. Others who have been creating change and paving unexplored roads their entire lives may be finding fresh ways to make a difference and to fulfill themselves and their passions   Let’s try to see the viewpoints of others even if we ardently disagree with them and must, on principle, begin to organize in peaceful but purposeful opposition to support what we think is right. 

If we can resolve our differences for the greater good, we should. If we cannot, then we should make plans, take action and diverge, hopefully always with the recipients of our years of labor foremost in our hearts and minds, and not with our own political and personal motivators predominating.