SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS Tables
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
30–901PDF
2006
HAGUE CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL
ADOPTIONS: STATUS AND THE FRAMEWORK
FOR IMPLEMENTATION
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
NOVEMBER 14, 2006
Serial No. 109–241
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.internationalrelations.house.gov/
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey,
Vice Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
PETER T. KING, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
RON PAUL, Texas
DARRELL ISSA, California
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
JERRY WELLER, Illinois
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan
KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida
JOE WILSON, South Carolina
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina
CONNIE MACK, Florida
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
MICHAEL McCAUL, Texas
TED POE, Texas
TOM LANTOS, California
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
BRAD SHERMAN, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
BARBARA LEE, California
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
DIANE E. WATSON, California
ADAM SMITH, Washington
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
DENNIS A. CARDOZA, California
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., Staff Director/General Counsel
ROBERT R. KING, Democratic Staff Director
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California,
Vice Chairman
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
BARBARA LEE, California
DIANE E. WATSON, California
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
MARY M. NOONAN, Subcommittee Staff Director
GREG SIMPKINS, Subcommittee Professional Staff Member
NOELLE LUSANE, Democratic Professional Staff Member
SHERI A. RICKERT, Subcommittee Professional Staff Member and Counsel
LINDSEY M. PLUMLEY, Staff Associate
C O N T E N T S
WITNESSES
Ms. Catherine Barry, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Overseas Citizens Services, U.S. Department of State
Ms. Lori Scialabba, Associate Director, Refugee, Asylum and International Operations Directorate, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Mr. Richard Klarberg, President and CEO, Council on Accreditation
Ms. Dana Andrews, Licensing Administrator, Division of Child Care, Colorado Department of Human Services
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Thomas DiFilipo, President and CEO, Joint Council on International Children's Services
Mr. Thomas Atwood, President and CEO, National Council for Adoption
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Ms. Catherine Barry: Prepared statement
Ms. Lori Scialabba: Prepared statement
Mr. Richard Klarberg: Prepared statement
Ms. Dana Andrews: Prepared statement
Mr. Thomas DiFilipo: Prepared statement
Mr. Thomas Atwood: Prepared statement
HAGUE CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL ADOPTIONS: STATUS AND THE FRAMEWORK FOR IMPLEMENTATION
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2006
House of Representatives,
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights
and International Operations,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m. in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. Smith (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Mr. SMITH. The hearing will come to order. I want to thank Mr. Delahunt for joining us. This hearing is being held in November to coincide with National Adoption Month.
Unlike the usual celebrations for this month that focus on the building of family through adoption, or on the child who thrives in a loving adoptive family, this hearing will focus on the complex issues and challenges facing the United States as we move to ratify The Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Cooperation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption.
Adoption is something I think we all believe in, and I certainly believe in it passionately. It remains one of the most compassionate, humane, courageous, and loving options available to a child who has been orphaned and abandoned due to a variety of reasons, including the fact that unwed mothers are increasingly keeping and raising their children and because more than 1.3 million unborn children in the United States are aborted every year. More than 47 million children have been aborted since 1973. The number of domestic children eligible for adoption has declined dramatically, prompting many prospective adoptive parents to look overseas. Thus, over the last decade, the number of foreign children adopted annually by American citizens has doubled from 11,340 to 22,739.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is worth noting, parenthetically, that in the United States there are more children adopted from abroad than all of the other countries of the world combined.
In 1993 at the seventh session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, 66 countries came to agreement on a Convention to ensure that intercountry adoptions are made in the best interest of the child and with respect for his or her fundamental rights and to prevent the abduction, the sale of, or traffic in children. The Convention, which entered into force in 1995, contains 48 articles and seeks to ensure that the child is indeed adoptable, that an intercountry adoption is in the child's best interest, that prospective adoptive parents are eligible and suited to adopt, and that competent transparent mechanisms, including a central authority, are in place in each country.
The Convention in the United States implementing legislation, the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000, or the IAA, makes the child's best interest the paramount concern of the adoption proceedings. In fact, the first statement in the preamble of the Convention calls for recognizing that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love, and understanding.
The Convention also provides safeguards for the birth parents and the prospective adoptive parents. The Convention is very clear that birth parents must not be induced by payments or compensation of any kind. In addition, the birth parents must understand that in giving their consent, they will no longer be the child's legal parents and that consent to adoption must be freely given.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Prospective adoptive parents can count on the fact that the child that they want to adopt has not been abducted, sold, or trafficked. They can rest assured that the adoption proceedings will be handled in a way that promotes the best interest of the child and, at the same time, respects the dignity of the birth parents and safeguards their own needs to establish a forever family.
The Convention is also clear that prospective adoptive parents must be eligible and suited to adopt. Eligibility and suitability are determined by the sending country which makes known its preferences in terms of marital status, certain age requirements, and financial status. The receiving country determines and approves eligibility and suitability through a home study of the prospective adoptive parents based on a comprehensive review of family and medical history, social environment, and reasons for adoption that meet the sending country's requirements.
The United States is the largest receiving country, adopting, again, more children from abroad than all of the other countries combined. The top four sending countries, it is worth noting, over the past 5 years include China with over 31,000 children; Russia, more than 24,000, almost 25,000; Guatemala, 13,000; and South Korea with 8,700. Of the four primary countries sending children to the United States, three have signed the Convention—China, the Russian Federation, and Guatemala—while South Korea has not.
Before we start taking testimony, I want to share with you some of my observations and concerns about the process. First, while I believe that every child has a right to grow up in a loving family, I also believe there is no right to adopt. By this I mean that close examination of the social environment suitability to adopt and eligibility to adopt are critical to promoting the best interest of the child. In addition, it is very important, as the largest receiving country, that we respect the rules of the sending country in terms of who can adopt and that we follow up with post-adoption services, if that was the initial agreement.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A cursory look at the requirements of the top four sending countries indicates that—and I quote: ''China's law permits adoption by heterosexual married couples and single heterosexual persons.'' China's law prohibits a homosexual individual or couples from adopting Chinese children. The Russian Federation requires that married couples and single persons may adopt Russian children, but the single person must be at least 16 years older than the prospective child. Russia also requires four follow-up visits with the family to complete the official adoption reports. These post-adoption reports are due 6, 12, 24 and 36 months following the adoption.
Guatemala requires that married couples and single persons 25 years or older are eligible to adopt. And, finally, South Korea's guidelines for adoption are that the prospective parents must be eligible to adopt under the laws of their home country or state of resident. Single parents are not eligible to adopt; and couples should be married for at least 3 years, be between the ages of 25 and 44, and not have an age difference between the spouses of more than 15 years.
I would need to be assured today by State DHC and the accrediting agencies that as the United States moves toward ratification, aggressive actions will be taken to let sending countries know that the United States will prepare its home studies to satisfy the guidelines that sending countries require. The home study preparer can only fulfill the requirements of the sending country if the home study is completed with the specific country identified and the specific requirements are made known. Marital status, social environment, age of prospective adoptive parents and willingness to meet post-adoptive requirements are specific items that must be identified if the U.S. is going to fulfill its obligations. This is the only way the United States can comply with the requirements of the sending country, the Convention, and the IAA.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Sadly, I must note that in the four top sending countries, the U.S. has serious concerns about things like baby selling and trafficking, abandonment, and fraud. In China, estimates run as high as 2 million orphaned and abandoned children. Under China's one-child-per-couple policy, the cultural preference for boys has produced a black market for baby boys. As a result, baby girls are abandoned, leading to a shortage in females in some regions of the country and a black market for baby girls as well. It is reported that newborns have been sold to orphanages for $100 to $150 and resold for adoption at the rate of $3,000 to $4,000. Since China has ratified the Convention, it is my hope that these problems will soon be remedied.
Guatemala was recently in the media where concerns were raised about countries that have ratified the Convention. Issues have been raised with regards to Guatemala's ratification of an international treaty that apparently violates Guatemalan law. What concerns me is the fact that the privately-run adoption system uses baby brokers to pay birth mothers for their newborns. This affronts the dignity of the baby, the birth mother, and the prospective adoptive parents. This violates the Convention and must not be allowed to stand.
And both the Russian Federation and South Korea require the adoption agencies to follow up with the child in what is called post-adoption service. These include visits, photos, and reports to be sent to the country of origin.
Noncompliance issues have been raised by experts who note that some families adopting from Russia and South Korea do not want their families to be disrupted by sending these reports to the countries of origin. Since this is a requirement of a sending country, every effort must be made to fulfill this requirement, and I am interested in what options the adoption agencies have in this regard.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Finally, let me say with great sadness, I have chaired now two hearings on the ongoing problems with the Government of Romania and its ban on intercountry adoption, despite the fact that they have signed the Hague Convention. Last year in April, as well as the year before that, we held riveting testimony with particular emphasis on those adoptive parents in the United States who are ''in the pipeline.'' These are men, women, and families who already have identified the children that they would like to adopt, only to be told at the 11th hour that as a requirement of joining the European Union, Romania will no longer allow those adoptions to go forward. And not only have American families been hurt by this but hundreds of European families as well, particularly in Italy. And perhaps our witnesses could shed some light on any efforts that will be made on that as well.
We have had Maura Harty testify before our Helsinki Commission and she has been outstanding in trying to resolve those cases. Again the heartbreak is very, very egregious for those families who have made adoption plans.
I would like to yield to Mr. Delahunt, a good friend and a distinguished colleague who has worked very hard in the IAA, for any comments he might have.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I am going to be very brief. And I want to just commend you, Mr. Chairman, for your efforts in terms of intercountry adoption. I have a vivid memory of the year 2000 when we worked closely together to craft and secure the passage of the IAA. I would note that it is now almost 7 years, we are heading into 7 years post the enactment of the IAA, and I would hope that we could accelerate the process in terms of finally reaching an end result, and I would hope that both DHS and DOS are working closely together to achieve that particular goal.
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I also want to—I would be remiss not to note the presence of Cassie Bevan here today, who provided yeoman service to the Committee and to the Members in terms of drafting the IAA. And I want to compliment her publicly and thank her once more, some 6 years later.
And I note, Ms. Barry, that in your testimony you referenced concerns about Guatemala. I think it was maybe 2–3 years ago, myself and Congressman Camp visited Guatemala. I have to state publicly I am disappointed that we haven't seen more progress in terms of Guatemala. And I am not—I want to be very clear—I am not assessing all of the culpability and responsibility on the Guatemalan Government. I think that is important to state publicly. But I would hope the Guatemalan Congress would have taken action by now, and it would appear that the kind of remedies that you discuss are going to possibly be necessary to secure some response, some appropriate response by the Guatemalan Congress, because it is a situation that really cries out for remedy. And I want to be very, very clear because I know that I have many, many constituents who have adopted children from Guatemala, our—let me put it this way, their cases are pending—that if action is to be taken, be done in such a way as to protect those who are currently in the pipeline, so to speak, that have applied. So I want to be particularly reassuring to them that their applications, if they have been filed, ought to be processed through completion, but we have got a situation in Guatemala that I believe has to be addressed.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back and again thank you for your service.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, and I appreciate the work we have done together.
I would like to now welcome Ms. Catherine Barry from the Department of State. It is the State Department which functioned as the United States central authority as required by the Convention and the IAA. The State Department has made progress in publishing the final regulation on the accreditation of the adoption providers, selecting the Council on Accreditation and the State of Colorado as the accrediting entities approving the fee schedules. The accrediting entities will charge the providers approving the compliance system the accrediting agencies will use in assessing the adoption agencies' adherence to both the Convention and IAA. In addition, the State Department announced that by the end of this week, November 17th, adoption service providers must submit their transitional applications for accreditation. The State Department has been working at developing a regulatory framework for implementing the IAA and the Convention and should be congratulated.
It is my pleasure also to welcome Ms. Lori Scialabba, representing the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security. Under the IAA, the USCIS is responsible for approval of the home studies. The home studies must be prepared by accredited agencies. It must include a statement that the prospective adoptive parents completed training, counseling, and a statement of all facts relevant to the eligibility and suitability of the prospective adoptive parents to adopt a child under any specific requirement identified by the specific authority of the child's country of origin. No regulations have yet been issued by DHS dealing with the home study preparation and how it will change under the Convention and the IAA.
I want to thank you for being here. And, Ms. Barry, if you could begin and please proceed as you would like.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF MS. CATHERINE BARRY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR OVERSEAS CITIZENS SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Ms. BARRY. Chairman Smith, distinguished Members of the Committee, it is fitting that the Committee chose to hold this hearing during National Adoption Month. I welcome this opportunity to provide you with a report on the progress we have made in preparing for U.S. succession to the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption. We have met a number of important milestones this year in our efforts to complete ratification of this Convention, and are on track to complete the remaining legal requirements so the United States can ratify the Convention in 2007.
We have published the final rule on accreditation of agencies and approval of persons in February of this year. These comprehensive and detailed regulations reflect input from about 1,500 adoption stakeholders. We have made every effort to ensure that the final rule reflects both the letter and the spirit of the bipartisan legislation enacted by Congress and takes into account the input received from all interested stakeholders.
We also finalized a rule which addresses the retention of Convention adoption records for 75 years by both the Department of State and Homeland Security. We completed work on the final rule governing standards for immigrating or outgoing cases, again taking into account the public comments that we received on the proposed rule.
We published a proposed rule which requires reporting on cases involving American children emigrating to either Convention or non-Convention countries. The IAA requirement to track outgoing countries presents a challenge. Such cases are now handled at the State level, and no information is now provided to the Federal Government. The proposed rule suggests a solution that we believe will not unduly burden domestic authorities. The public comment period for this closed just yesterday, November 13th. We expect to be able to publish the final rule on this subject before the end of the year.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, as you already mentioned, we signed a memorandum of agreement this summer with the Council on Accreditation in Colorado's Department of Human Services, designating them as accrediting entities. These two accrediting entities are highly qualified and have demonstrated that they are fully capable of performing the report to accredit, temporarily accredit or approve adoption service providers. I am pleased that representatives for these entities are here today. They have submitted their detailed budgets and proposed fee schedules which we have reviewed and approved in accordance with the IAA.
The Department also approved the substantial compliance system that trained evaluators of accrediting agencies will use in evaluating adoption service providers. Then, again, as you have already noted, this Friday, November 17th, is the deadline for adoption service providers to apply for accreditation, temporary accreditation or approval. This is an important milestone, because when we know how many service providers are in the pipeline we can project how long it will reasonably take for the accreditation and approval process to be completed. In other words, we can better project when in 2007 we will be able to complete our ratification of the Hague Convention. We will be using a Web-based tracking system, called the Adopting Tracking System, to track all pending intercountry adoption cases and allow retrieval of information on both pending and closed cases involving the United States.
Much of the development of the system is ready to include the functionality that will link up the Department of State with the accrediting entities and the accredited adoption providers.
Outreach continues to be an important part of our work. In recent months we have spoken at several large adoption conferences to explain the importance of the Hague Convention and provide an overview of the changes we anticipate once we ratify. We wrote to State licensing offices in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico to update them on the Convention.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
To respond to inquiries from the adoption community, we created a dedicated mailbox, AdoptionUSCA@state.gov, and have answered hundreds of questions about Hague implementation. We established a list for interadoption stakeholders to keep them informed of all Hague Convention developments. Our Hague implementation staff recently published a new guide to the Hague Conventions specifically for prospective adoptive parents. We are proud of the significant Hague implementation milestones we have accomplished thus far and are confident that in the next several months we will see significant progress toward the accreditation of the U.S. adoption service providers, the next major milestone toward ratification of the Convention.
Thank you for your attention.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Barry follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MS. CATHERINE BARRY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR OVERSEAS CITIZENS SERVICES, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Chairman Smith and distinguished members of the Committee:
It is fitting that the Committee chose to hold this hearing during National Adoption Month, as the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption constitutes one of the most comprehensive and important reforms to the intercountry adoption process in recent memory. Its implementation by the United States next year will create new, federal-level standards and protections that will greatly benefit those thousands of children from around the world in need of permanent families. I welcome this opportunity to provide you with a report on the progress we have made in making this important treaty a reality for the United States.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Department of State has made implementation of the Hague Adoption Convention a top priority for the Bureau of Consular Affairs. We have met a number of important milestones this year in our efforts to complete ratification of this Convention. We are on track to complete the remaining legal requirements assigned to the Department of State by the Intercountry Adoption Act (IAA) so that the United States can ratify the Convention in 2007.
Let me now update you on the status of our work. The Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000, the legislation implementing the Hague Convention, required adoption service providers to be accredited, temporarily accredited or approved in order to perform adoption services in connection with a Convention adoption. To meet this requirement, we published the final rule on accreditation of agencies and approval of persons, 22CFR Part 96, in February of this year. It is a comprehensive and detailed regulation that reflects input from about 1500 adoption stakeholders. We conducted a preliminary comment period, published draft rules on the internet and solicited informal input through surveys and outreach efforts, held a multitude of public meetings throughout the process, issued a proposed rule, published all the comments on our website, and created and issued a final rule that responds to all the passionate and sometimes conflicting public comments. We have made every effort to ensure that the final rule reflects both the letter and the spirit of the bi-partisan legislation enacted by Congress—the IAA—and takes into account the input received from all interested stakeholders.
At the same time, we finalized a rule, 22 CFR Part 98, which addresses the retention of Convention adoption records for 75 years by the Departments of State and Homeland Security. We also completed work on the final rule governing emigrating or outgoing cases. This rule, 22CFR Part 97, outlines the requirements for the issuance of Hague Adoption Certificates and Hague Custody declarations in cases when a child resident in the United States leaves to live with adoptive parents in another Hague Convention country. The Department issued the rule as final with minor changes, taking into account the public comments that we received on the proposed rule. The publication of this final rule is a milestone in Convention implementation. For the first time at the federal level, the rule creates sound safeguards and uniform protections for U.S. children who are being adopted by prospective adoptive parents from another Convention country. The final rule will take effect when the Convention enters into force for the United States.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We also recently published a proposed rule, 22CFR Part 99, which will require reporting on cases involving American children emigrating to either Convention or non-Convention countries. The public comment period for this proposed rule closed just yesterday, November 13, 2006. We expect to be able to issue the rule in final quite soon, given its short length and limited application. Under the IAA, the rule must also be signed by DHS before being issued in final[b1].
In addition to our regulatory work, this past summer the Department signed Memoranda of Agreement (MOAs) with the Council on Accreditation (COA) and Colorado's Department of Human Services, designating them as accrediting entities (AEs). We then published these MOAs in the Federal Register. These two accrediting entities are highly qualified and have demonstrated that they are fully capable of performing the important work to accredit, temporarily accredit, or approve adoption service providers. I am pleased that representatives of these two entities are here today. Allow me to describe these organizations' qualifications for this important work.
The Colorado Department of Human Services is the licensing authority for non-profit adoption agencies in Colorado. The Colorado licensing department is experienced with regulating adoption service providers as well as with enforcing its standards via denial or withdrawal of licenses of adoption services that do not meet its comprehensive standards. Colorado will accredit only adoption service providers located and licensed in the State of Colorado.
The Council on Accreditation, or COA, is recognized nationally as a premier accrediting entity for both private and public social service agencies. It has many years of experience in accreditation, with a commitment to assisting its member social service agencies in developing the highest standards of practice in programs for children and families.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
After designating the accrediting entities, the Department was required to approve certain aspects of their early accreditation and approval work. Specifically, as required by the IAA, the accrediting entities submitted for the Department's approval their detailed budgets and proposed fee schedules. After careful review, we approved the fees as required by the IAA.
The Department also approved the substantial compliance system that Colorado and COA jointly proposed for their trained evaluators to use in evaluating adoption service providers in accordance with the standards in the accreditation/approval regulation. We appreciate the work that they have completed to date to ensure that accredited and approved adoption service providers will be in substantial compliance with the regulatory standards, as required by the IAA, the Memoranda of Agreement, and the accreditation/approval regulations.
With the approval of the fee schedules and substantial compliance systems, the Department was able to set this Friday, November 17, as the Transitional Application Deadline, or TAD—another important milestone for us. This deadline is important because it establishes how many adoption service providers have applied for accreditation, temporary accreditation, or approval. Knowing the number of applicants will permit us to project how long it will reasonably take for the accreditation and approval process to be completed. Adoption service providers who have applied by the transitional application deadline and who have been approved by the deadline for initial accreditation will be included on the first list of accredited or approved adoption service providers sent to the Hague Permanent Bureau when we ratify the Convention.
As required by our MOAs with the AEs, they will keep the Department informed when problems arise. Complaints from adoptive parents, birthparents, adoptees and other stakeholders regarding compliance with the Hague Convention and the IAA will be taken very seriously by the Department and the AEs. Before designating COA and Colorado as AEs, we verified the procedures they follow in investigating complaints, what enforcement methods were available to them, and what penalties or corrective actions could be imposed. We also covered enforcement issues in detail in the final regulation on the accreditation/approval of adoption service providers. Many of the sections of the final rule regulate the accrediting entities. We take our oversight responsibilities under the IAA seriously and will be monitoring AE compliance with the regulations and the MOAs. Standards in the regulations also incorporate measures necessary when complaints about adoption service providers have not been resolved appropriately. These include revoking an adoption service provider's accreditation or approval permanently or until appropriate corrective action has been taken.
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition to our regulatory work and our work with the accrediting entities, we are developing a web-based case tracking system called the Adoption Tracking System (ATS) of which the Complaint Registry that we discussed above is a component. The system fulfills the IAA requirement in section 102 (e) for the Department and DHS to establish a case registry that tracks all pending intercountry adoption cases, and allows retrieval of information on both pending and closed intercountry adoption cases involving the United States. This system will include data from our immigrant visa computerized databases and data received on cases in which children emigrate from the United States.
We have already completed development of those ATS components to be used by accrediting entities and adoption service providers. The final component, the Case Registry, is under development now. The challenge for us will be to acquire information about emigrating (outgoing) cases as required by the IAA. Under our federal system such cases are handled at the State level and there is currently no requirement that those parties involved provide that information to us. The proposed joint rule (22 CFR Part 99) that I mentioned earlier will impose new reporting requirements for these cases.
We will monitor the performance of the AEs using a variety of mechanisms, including site visits, document reviews, and scheduled telephone contact. In recent months, we have held frequent on-line meetings with the AEs about ongoing implementation issues. Our agreements with the AEs permit the Department to obtain copies of the forms and materials they use and to inspect all records relating to the accreditation function. The AEs will also report events that may have a significant impact on their ability to perform their duties. These include financial difficulties, changes in key personnel, State legislative or regulatory changes, legal or disciplinary actions or conflicts of interest. Department staff responsible for AE liaison and oversight will monitor the complaint registry regularly to track how the AEs resolve any complaints against adoption service providers.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Outreach continues to be an important part of our plan to reach our target ratification date in 2007. In recent months, we have spoken at several conferences sponsored by organizations such as the Lutheran Adoption Network, the North American Council on Adopted Children, the American Academy of Adoption Attorneys and Holt International Children's Services. During such events, we strive to explain the importance of the Hague Convention and provide an overview of the changes we anticipate once we ratify. We have also sent letters to state licensing offices in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico to update them on the Convention and to provide information about the accreditation and approval regulations that will affect adoption service providers.
To respond to inquiries from the adoption community, we created a dedicated mailbox, AdoptionUSCA@state.gov. We have answered hundreds of questions about Hague implementation via this email address. We also established a listserv to send e-mail messages to all interested adoption stakeholders to keep them informed of Convention developments. Other members of the public can join this listserv. To help prospective adoptive parents get a better understanding of what the Convention will mean to them, our Hague implementation staff recently published a new guide specifically for that key audience.
We are very committed to ensuring that all aspects of the regulatory process are transparent and take into account the views of adoption stakeholders to the fullest extent possible. To accomplish this, we work very closely with adoption community leaders to solicit their input and perspectives on Hague-related issues, including proactively soliciting their comments on proposed regulations.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Under the IAA and its amendments to the INA, DHS has responsibility for functions related to the filing of intercountry adoption applications. DHS is in the process of drafting proposed regulations to set forth procedures and eligibility requirements for Hague cases under the IAA. Earlier this year we issued a companion proposed rule (22 CFR Part 42) on consular officer procedures for Hague cases overseas. We are coordinating with DHS so that our rule is compatible with any DHS-issued regulation. In this regard, I would especially like to thank my colleagues from US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) who are here with us today and who have worked very closely with us in this partnership. Our relationship with USCIS is very cooperative and the regular adoption working group meetings chaired by DHS with Bureau of Consular Affairs participation include frequent discussions on Hague implementation. I will let my colleague from DHS address the status of its proposed rule for Hague case procedures.
We are also increasing our diplomatic efforts to ensure that our future Convention country partners will be able to comply with the Convention's requirements for countries of origin. Once the Convention enters into force for the United States, prospective adoptive parents who adopt from Convention countries will have assurance that their child was not a victim of unscrupulous adoption practices but was a child eligible for adoption and in need of a permanent and loving home.
Before I conclude, I would like to say a few words about one important Hague Convention partner: Guatemala.
Guatemala is recognized as a party to the Hague Adoption Convention under international law. But Guatemala has not implemented the Convention, and its current adoption process is not consistent with Hague principles for the protection of children and families. Pursuant to our commitment to the Hague Convention, the Department has made clear to all appropriate Guatemalan government agencies that we will not continue adoptions from that country unless they comply with the Hague Convention standards.
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The current adoption process in Guatemala does not afford many of the children and families the protections they deserve. Most Guatemalan birth mothers directly relinquish a child to an attorney, whose practices and methods for obtaining consents are unregulated. The birth mothers typically relinquish the child without counseling and without the benefit of any public entity ensuring that the relinquishment is truly voluntary. Full compliance with the Hague Convention would ensure that public authorities work with the birth families, not just private attorneys. It would also ensure that public authorities, such as executive branch agencies or courts, determine that a child is eligible for adoption, rather than a determination by unregulated private attorneys who currently control all aspects of the adoption process in Guatemala.
The process now in place in Guatemala, inherent with conflicts of interest, makes abuses possible and does nothing to prevent improper financial gain in connection with an intercountry adoption.
We are starting now, before the Convention enters into force for the United States, to strongly engage with Guatemalan officials in an effort to encourage and support Hague adoption reform at all levels.
For example, in mid-October, I visited Guatemala to continue the dialogue. The timeline is short, but we believe it is possible for both countries to implement the Convention in 2007.
In closing, let me reiterate that we at the State Department are proud of the significant Hague implementation milestones we have accomplished thus far, and are confident that Congress will see significant progress concerning the accreditation of U.S. adoption service providers over the next several months—the next major milestone towards ratification of the Convention.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you for your continued support in our work to implement the Hague Adoption Convention, which is right for the world and right for the United States.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you so very much, Ms. Barry.
Ms. Scialabba.
STATEMENT OF MS. LORI SCIALABBA, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, REFUGEE, ASYLUM AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS DIRECTORATE, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES
Ms. SCIALABBA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished Members of the Committee. I am currently the associate director for the Refugee, Asylum and International Operations Directorate of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). I am honored to have this opportunity to address the Committee on the changes to the intercountry adoption process in accordance with the Intercountry Act of 2000 and the Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption.
Employees of USCIS are proud of the role we play in helping to find families in the U.S. for orphaned children from other countries. As a result of our collective efforts, more than 200,000 foreign-born children have been adopted into families in the United States over the past decade. USCIS remains committed to improving its processes while strengthening measures to protect children's interest. It is the primary goal of USCIS's administration of the intercountry adoption program to ensure that adoptions are in the children's best interest.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I also would like to take this opportunity to thank our colleagues at the Department of State for their ongoing partnership with USCIS as we work toward implementation of the Hague Convention.
I believe the open and collaborative nature of the partnership is helping to ensure successful implementation of the IAA and Hague Convention. Today I will share with you where USCIS is in its current efforts to improve intercountry adoption processes and provide an image of what we are striving to achieve with our regulations.
In March 2006, USCIS chartered the Intercountry Working Group consisting of representatives of all components within USCIS that play a role in the intercountry adoption process as well as representatives from the Department of State's Office of Children's Issues and Consulate Affairs. USCIS leadership has charged this group with addressing three issues: Near-term improvements and streamlining of USCIS's current intercountry adoption processes; long-term redesign of USCIS's intercountry adoption processes to strengthen customer service and integrity and promulgation of USCIS regulations and potential other changes necessary to implement the IAA and the Hague Convention.
USCIS has already seen progress from efforts of this working group, particularly in the area of coordination with the Department of State. For example, as a result of increased communication, USCIS and the Department of State have agreed to provide joint quarterly updates to the Adoption Institute concerning implementation of the Hague Convention. Updates were provided on June 12th and September 25th of this year.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The IAA establishes the domestic legal framework for implementing U.S. framework under the Hague Convention. President Clinton signed the IAA on October 6, 2000. Since that time, efforts have been underway to issue Federal regulations to set forth requirements that entities must meet to qualify for designation to accredited or approved adoption service providers; the standards agencies and individuals must meet to become Hague Convention-accredited or approved as adoption service providers, and the procedures governing Hague Convention adoption both for children coming to the United States and those going from the United States to another country based on a Hague Convention adoption.
I will address only part of the third point: The procedures for U.S. citizens seeking to adopt children from Hague Convention countries, as this is where USCIS responsibility lies. We are responsible for determination of the eligibility and suitability of prospective adoptive parents to adopt a child from another Hague country and adjudication of petition to classify a child as a Hague child. Through consultation, USCIS and the Department of State have agreed to a program working for implementing the IAA and the Hague Convention. My remarks today are reflective of that general framework.
Once the IAA amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) become effective, a child who is habitually residing in a Hague country will no longer be eligible for classification as an orphan under section 101(b)(1)(F) of the INA if the child will be moving to the United States as a result of adoption. Any such adoption must conform to the Hague process and procedures. The definition of a Hague child in section 101(b)(1)(G) of the INA will broaden the definition of a child who may be adopted, will be further expanded to include a child with a sole surviving parent to account for situations for a child who had two parents, but one parent died or one parent abandoned or deserted the child and the remaining surviving parent freely has given a written, irrevocable release for immigration or adoption. This is noteworthy because currently a child may not be classified as an orphan and hence be eligible for adoption based on release from two living parents. The IAA will allow for more children to become eligible for adoption as long as the safeguards have been met.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
USCIS is currently drafting proposed regulation under the IAA to set forth the procedures and requirements that must be followed by the prospective adoptive parents in order for USCIS to determine their eligibility and suitability to adopt a child from a Hague Country.
As with any rule, once the proposed rule is published, interested persons can submit concerns. We have been following closely the comments to the several Department of State rules implementing the IAA and the Hague Convention. We have taken the relevant concerns raised in those contexts under consideration to inform our regulation development. We look forward to the constructive and valuable input we will receive from concerned parties as part of the rulemaking process. We anticipate that our proposed rule's approach the stages of adjudication to determine the eligibility of a child for Hague classification, to ensure the eligibility requirements and the Hague Convention are met, and the best interests of the children are protected.
As reflected in my remarks before the Committee today, intercountry adoptions involve a multi-faceted process where multiple discrete decisions must be made regarding both a child overseas and prospective adoptive parents. The sequencing of events and coordination between the Department of State and USCIS has become even more critical under the Hague Convention and IAA. USCIS, in partnership with the Department of State, is committed to making the process work for birth parents, adoptive parents and, above all, the children involved in intercountry adoptions.
Thank you again for the opportunity to speak to you on this important subject, and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Ms. Scialabba follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MS. LORI SCIALABBA, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, REFUGEE, ASYLUM AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS DIRECTORATE, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
My name is Lori Scialabba, and I am Associate Director of the Refugee, Asylum and International Operations Directorate of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). I am honored to have this opportunity to address the Committee on ongoing efforts to implement changes to the intercountry adoptions process in accordance with the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (IAA) and the Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (Hague Convention). The employees of USCIS are proud of the important role we play in assisting U.S. citizens seeking to adopt children from other countries. As a result of our collective efforts, more than 200,000 foreign-born children have been adopted into families in the United States over the past decade. USCIS remains committed to improving and streamlining its processes, while strengthening measures to protect children's interests in the process. It is the primary goal of USCIS's administration of the intercountry adoption program to ensure that adoptions are in the children's best interests.
I also would like to take this opportunity to thank our colleagues at the Department of State for their ongoing partnership with USCIS as we work towards the implementation of the Hague Convention. This long and continuing process has been a collaborative effort between USCIS and the Department of State and has involved a great amount of teamwork and cooperation. Today, my colleagues from the Department of State and I will share with you where we each are in the current process and provide an image of what we are striving to achieve with our Hague regulations.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
OVERVIEW
In recent years, the United States has seen an increase in the number of children from other countries adopted by U.S citizens—from 19,087 children in fiscal year 2001 to more than 22,700 children in fiscal year 2005.1\ USCIS remains committed to improving and streamlining its processes, while strengthening the protection of children in the system.
RECENT ACHIEVEMENTS IN INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION
USCIS understands the critical role it plays in the process of intercountry adoptions. There are several vehicles USCIS uses in its efforts to assist prospective adoptive parents and children through the intercountry adoption process. One such vehicle is the Child Citizenship Act (CCA).
Child Citizenship Act Program
The CCA became effective on February 27, 2001. The act amended section 320 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) by providing U.S. citizenship to certain foreign-born children. Under the CCA, children with a full and final adoption abroad who immigrate to the United States with a U.S. citizen parent automatically acquire U.S. citizenship upon admission to the U.S. as an immigrant. Children who immigrate and have their adoption finalized in the United States become citizens at the time of the final U.S. adoption. A ''full and final adoption'' exists, for immigration purposes, if (1) the adoptive parents completed the adoption abroad according to the laws of the child's country, so that the adoptive parents are now the child's legal parents for all purposes, and (2) BOTH parents, when two parents are adopting, meet the child either before or during the adoption proceeding abroad. The child receives an ''IR–3'' immigrant visa if both of these requirements are met. If not, then the child receives an ''IR–4'' immigrant visa. For example, if only one parent saw the child, but the foreign proceeding was an actual adoption proceeding, an IR–4 visa would be the proper visa. An IR–4 visa would also be the proper visa if both parents saw the child, but the foreign proceeding was a guardianship or custody proceeding, rather than an actual adoption proceeding. For a child who enters with an IR–4 visa, the parents must then adopt the child in the United States, if there was no adoption abroad. If there was an adoption abroad, but the parents did not both meet the child before or during the adoption, then the parents must establish that the foreign adoption is recognized under the law of their home State. This recognition may be established either by obtaining a formal court order recognizing the adoption (sometimes called ''re-adoption'') or by establishing that the home State's law recognized the foreign adoption without the need for a formal court proceeding.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
If a citizen believes that his or her adopted child acquired citizenship under the CCA, the parent may file an application for a certificate of citizenship. In addition to this standard practice, however, USCIS also implemented the requirements of the CCA by creating a special program that processes citizenship for children adopted abroad by U.S. citizens. The program began on January 1, 2004, and is located in the USCIS Buffalo, New York District Office. Through the program, USCIS-Buffalo receives and reviews all immigrant visas for children admitted to the United States who were adopted abroad (that is, those issued IR–3 visas), and issues a certificate of citizenship to those children who meet the requirements under section 320 for automatic acquisition of citizenship. Under this special program, no formal application for a certificate of citizenship is required, if the child meets these requirements.
To date, the CCA program has been a success. From its inception on January 1, 2004 to October 31, 2006, the program has produced 42,539 certificates of citizenship for adopted children who entered the United States with an IR–3 visa and were found to have automatically acquired citizenship under section 320.
It is important to note that just 34 days, on average, elapse from the time the child enters the United States with an IR–3 immigrant visa to the time a certificate of citizenship is produced for the adopted child. While proud of this accomplishment, USCIS continues to strive to maintain and improve the efficiency of this program.
INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTIONS WORKING GROUP
In March 2006 USCIS chartered the Intercountry Adoptions Working Group consisting of representatives of various components within USCIS that play a role in intercountry adoption, as well as representatives from the Department of State's Bureau of Consular Affairs, Office of Children's Issues. The working group is responsible for addressing three issues:
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Near-term improvements and streamlining of USCIS' current intercountry adoption process;
Long-term redesign of USCIS' intercountry adoption process to strengthen customer service and integrity; and
Promulgation of USCIS regulations, and potential other changes, necessary to implement the Hague Convention.
We are already seeing progress from the efforts of this working group, particularly in the area of coordination with the Department of State. For example, as a result of increased communication, USCIS and the Department of State have agreed to provide joint quarterly updates to the Congressional Coalition on Adoption Institute concerning implementation of the Hague Convention and other pressing intercountry adoption issues. Updates were provided on June 12th and September 25th of this year.
THE CONVENTION ON PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AND CO-OPERATION IN RESPECT OF INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION (HAGUE CONVENTION)
The Hague Convention is a multilateral treaty that was approved on May 29, 1993. The Convention covers the adoption of a child who habitually resides in one Convention country by adoptive parent or parents who habitually reside in another Convention country, when the child is going to immigrate to the adoptive parents' country as a result of, or for the purpose of, the adoption. The Convention establishes certain internationally agreed-upon minimum norms and procedures. The goal of the Hague Convention is to protect the children involved in intercountry adoptions and to prevent abuses.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The United States signed the Hague Convention on March 31, 1994, signaling its intent to proceed with efforts to ratify the Convention. In September 2000, the Senate consented to the President's ratification of the Convention, but the Senate conditioned this consent on the adoption of the laws and regulations necessary to carry out the principles of the Convention.
On October 6, 2000, President Clinton signed the Intercountry Adoption Act that, among other things, establishes the domestic legal framework for implementing our obligations under the Hague Convention.
Since that time, efforts have been under way to issue federal regulations to set forth:
The requirements entities must meet to qualify for designation to accredit or approve adoption service providers;
The standards agencies and individuals must meet to become Hague Convention accredited or approved as adoption service providers; and
The procedures governing Hague Convention adoptions, both for children coming to the United States and those going from the United States to another country, based on a Hague Convention adoption.
I will address only part of the third point—the procedures for U.S. citizens seeking to adopt children from ''Hague countries''—as this is where USCIS has responsibility under the Intercountry Adoption Act. USCIS is responsible for:
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Determinations of the eligibility and suitability of a prospective adoptive parent to adopt a child from another Hague country; and
Adjudications of petitions to classify a child as a ''Hague child.''
Through consultation, USCIS and Department of State have agreed to a framework for implementing the IAA and the Hague Convention. My remarks today are reflective of that general framework.
Once the IAA amendments to the INA become effective, a child who is habitually residing in a Hague country will no longer be eligible for classification as an ''orphan'' under section 101(b)(1)(F) of the INA, if the child will be moving to the United States in connection with an adoption. Any such adoption must conform to the Hague process and procedures.
The definition of a ''Hague child'' in section 101(b)(1)(G) of the INA will broaden the definition of a child who may be adopted to include a child with two living biological parents who are incapable of providing proper care to the child. The definition of a child who may be adopted will be further expanded to include a child with a ''sole or surviving parent'' to account for situations where the child had two parents, but one parent died, disappeared, abandoned, or deserted the child, and the remaining sole or surviving parent freely has given a written irrevocable release for emigration and adoption.
This distinction and expansion is noteworthy because, currently, a child may not be classified as an orphan, and hence be eligible for adoption, based upon a release from two living parents. Additionally, in orphan cases, a father may not be considered to be a ''sole parent'' if the mother had disappeared or deserted or abandoned the child. Under current law applicable to orphan cases, only the mother of an illegitimate child is considered to be a sole parent, and only if it is established that she is incapable of providing proper care.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The IAA's expansion of these definitions will provide opportunities for more children to become eligible for adoption, as long as the safeguards and requirements of the Hague Convention have been met.
In consultation with the State Department, USCIS is currently drafting proposed regulations under the IAA to set forth the procedures and requirements that must be followed by prospective parents in order for USCIS to determine their eligibility and suitability to adopt a child from a Hague country.
As with any rule, once a proposed rule is published, interested persons can submit comments. We have been following closely the comments to the several Department of State rules implementing the Hague Convention and the IAA. We have taken the relevant concerns raised in those contexts under consideration to inform our regulatory development. We look forward to the constructive and valuable input we will receive from concerned parties as part of the rulemaking process.
We anticipate that our proposed rule's approach to the stages of adjudication to determine the eligibility of a child for Hague classification will ensure that the requirements of the Hague convention and the IAA have been complied with and the best interests of the child have been met.
CONCLUSION
As reflected in my remarks before the Committee today, intercountry adoptions involve a multifaceted process where multiple, discrete decisions must be made regarding both a child overseas and prospective adoptive parents. The sequencing of events and coordination between the Department of State and USCIS has become even more critical under the Hague Convention and the Intercountry Adoption Act. USCIS, in partnership with the Department of State, is committed to making the process work for birth parents, adoptive parents and above all the children involved in the intercountry adoptions, while adhering to the requirements of the participating countries. Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you on this important subject. I would be pleased to answer any questions the Committee may have.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
1\ The following table shows five years of data on the number of children from other countries adopted by U.S. citizens:
Mr. SMITH. Thank you so very much.
We are joined by Mr. Pitts. Do you have an opening statement? He has been a passionate defender of adoption for many, many years.
Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this important hearing. It is clear from your leadership and the work of nongovernmental organizations that there are many wonderful families in the United States who would be delighted to give children from other countries a loving home. We must take steps to streamline the international adoption process while ensuring both safeguards for children and respect for the sovereignty of the country of origin of each child. But, it is tragic that a child, particularly one with special needs, is forced to wait a lengthy period of time before moving to be with his or her new family. I particularly remain concerned about the status of adoption in Romania.
There are circumstances in which all reasonable efforts have been made to find a family for a child in the child's country of origin, and, despite these efforts, the child is not adopted. For these children, international adoption is their only chance to find a permanent loving home.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership on this issue, and I appreciate the opportunity to hear our distinguished witnesses today.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Pitts.
Let me just begin with some opening questions. First, to you, Ms. Barry: What is the process by which sending countries' requirements are made known to the United States accrediting entities and adoption agencies? How would this process change as we move toward transparency? And, to what extent is the Department of State proactive in providing requirements to prospective adoptive parents of the sending countries' requirements?
And Ms. Scialabba, we know that USCIS is responsible for determining the fitness of the parents. The State Department is knowledgeable about the specific country requirements. How does the State Department work with USCIS to ensure that the wishes of the parents and the sending countries are carried out?
You mentioned a moment ago about how important cooperation is—but how does that work? I went through at least four of the countries' very specific requirements, you are knowledgeable about all of that, how is that transferred to the prospective parents and all involved?
Ms. BARRY. Mr. Chairman, the Department of State now has available to the American public on our Web site general information about the requirements that each country has that relate to the suitability of adoptive parents. But as you go through that Web site, you will see that we address it mostly in free-form text, but what we will do differently after we get closer to our ratification date is to formalize this question, the questioning of the sending countries, so it will be very clear to them that this is not just a question for information but a question with repercussions on the adoption process. So we will draft very specific questions and have all of our diplomatic missions around the world, where it is appropriate to raise these questions, ask them in the same format so we get information back that reliably attests to the restrictions of each sending country. And this information will be shared with the accrediting entities and the adoption service providers.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
What we have done in the regulations on accreditation that the adoption service providers will need to focus on is that each specific home study needs to address explicitly the instruction, the restrictions of the sending countries. So if an American family expresses the intent of adopting a child from China, their home study will need to address the issues relevant to the restrictions of China.
So we think this is a good way of doing a couple of things: One, meeting the requirement of the IAA; but secondly, it is a way of ensuring the parents themselves have been adequately counseled. No one is going to benefit if parents are sending their files to a country where they are clearly not going to be viewed as suitable parents. So we think up front, the information from the adoption service providers to the families themselves can help them form their judgment as to which sending country they think suits their interest in pursuing a child.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you.
Ms. SCIALABBA. I think I would just add to that, that the adoptive parents will be required to identify the country from which the child will be adopted. So the known requirements, we will know up front what they are and the USCIS will take into consideration those requirements and whether they have been met.
Mr. SMITH. But let me ask in terms of children who will immigrate to other countries pursuant to an adoption plan that has been put into place by foreigners. What will be the criteria for our conveying to other countries the suitability of the parents as well as the eligibility of the children?
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BARRY. We do not believe that under the IAA we have a role in expressing, at the Federal level, criteria for foreign parents. As a rule, what we put forward for the emigration of children from the United States says that we will rely on the judgment of domestic authorities, particularly State-level courts, to determine that the adoption meets Hague Convention criteria as well as the criteria of that particular jurisdiction.
Mr. SMITH. For years, as I think you know, home studies have been an area of concern because they may provide insufficient information about the suitability or fitness of potential adoptive parents. For example, if potential adoptive parents do not like the outcome of a particular home study, they can shop home studies until they find one that does not raise questions about their fitness as a parent. In addition, often home studies are not being carried out by persons with licensed credentials if the State law does not require such credentials. What is the USCIS doing to strengthen weaknesses and improve the information that it receives to make decisions about the fitness of potential adoptive parents?
Ms. SCIALABBA. Let me first address the question for shopping around for home studies. One of the things that the system that we are planning to put into place some time toward the end of 2007 will be able to identify for us is if someone has filed an application for a home study from a different State previously. At that point we will know that there was a previous home study done and adjudication that was based on that home study.
And now—I have forgotten the second part of your question.
Mr. SMITH. It had to do with how do we improve information of potential adoptive parents? Will the home study capture that information in a way that really underscores the need for the fitness of the individual and the suitability of them to adopt?
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. SCIALABBA. Yes. Our expectation is that it will in fact do that. And the fact that we are strengthening the information that will be provided to the home study providers about what the requirements are that must be met, we anticipate that that will——
Mr. SMITH. Now if the home study found a person not suitable, what is the consequence for that in terms of whether they do indeed shop and find somewhere else to get a better mark?
Ms. SCIALABBA. I think part of that will depend on whether we are aware of the home study. If it is done before the home study is submitted, we might not be aware of that fact.
Mr. SMITH. How proactive do you expect you will be?
Ms. SCIALABBA. I will have to get back to you on that question.
Mr. SMITH. Well, I say that—and again I am not one of those who is so quick to be concerned as Romania is, for example. Nicholson, who is the rapporteur for EU ascension, sees international adoption as the equivalent of baby trafficking—and I think that is a very jaundiced and improper view. There are those who will exploit and they need to be dealt with and they need to be prosecuted. But to tarnish the wonderful network of adoption is, I think, a very serious mistake.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But having said that, if there are people who fail home studies or at least don't do as well as they would have liked, there needs to be some way of capturing that information. We know that people can be very evasive and very clever in going about this, and I am just wondering what level of scrutiny will we bring to bear that ensures that the parent has the fitness that we think is proper in order to adopt? Because that is important, not just in the best interest to the individual child, but to the whole system itself.
For example, there are people who play the system and lie and deceive about their homosexuality that do so to adopt in China. I can conceive of the Chinese Government shutting down in whole or in part their adoption mechanisms if they think people have improperly exploited their local requirement.
And I am just wondering what level of aggressiveness we are going to take on this for the best interest of the child, in particular, and for the adoption system in general, so that we don't see a shutdown as we saw in Romania. We have seen this happen time and time again in places like Russia—which has other issues that it deals with, demographic issues—but it doesn't take much to trigger local negative reaction that then translates into new policy that precludes adoption.
Ms. SCIALABBA. Actually, I have an answer for your question. We are currently referring to the process that will allow the direct submission for home studies rather than the home studies going to the adoptive parents, and we will receive all home studies that are done.
Ms. BARRY. If I might volunteer that from the point of the view of the State Department, we tried to address the issue of the qualifications of those who are preparing the home studies. So, whereas the content of a home study will be reviewed by USCIS, we did set regulations for the quality of the professional credentials that the preparer of the home study must have, as well as fixed responsibility for that home study with what we call the primary adoption service providers. So what we wanted to avoid was having a string of adoption service providers lined up, each doing one discrete task, and no one claiming responsibility for the whole. So in our regulatory framework, the primary adoption service provider will carry responsibility for the quality of the home studies, and their accreditation can be removed from them if we find that they are not meeting their appropriate responsibilities.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SMITH. Thank you. Mr. Delahunt.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me pursue that line.
I think it is very important that there be substantial integration between the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State. And I understand that the two Agencies are in the process of developing separate case management systems. I had hoped that there would have been a case management system that was organic in the sense that it had input and served both Agencies, because I am concerned about the potential for a gap. Can you comment on where we stand? Are the contractors speaking to each other? I think it was Congressman Pitts that talked about delays in terms of the process itself with, I think, a negative consequence to the best interest of the child as well as creating anguish for potential adoptive parents.
Ms. BARRY. Sir, I think I have a positive answer for you to allay your concerns. As I mentioned, we have been focusing on three of the four components of our automation that will support adoption, and that was the pieces that did not impact directly on USCIS. So we went forward first with the pieces that would impact on our relationship with the accrediting agencies and the adoption service providers.
Now we are very much focused on the module where we will have to share information back and forth and we are participating in a working group with subject experts and technical experts to make sure that the interface we design will make sure there is a seamless transition of information between the two Agencies.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So we don't view it as a problem that there are two separate systems, because we do different things and we will be tracking in part different activities, but there are certain critical data fields that we both need. And so for us, the main focus is on the interface.
Mr. DELAHUNT. And it will be mutual access.
Ms. BARRY. Mutual access, real-time updates, so the minute DHS finishes a particular milestone in a case, it comes to the State Department seamlessly and quickly so that then we can pick it up without any delay.
Mr. DELAHUNT. I think that is very important and we are—I am pleased to hear that and we are going to rely on you.
In terms of the concerns expressed by the Chairman, if there is noncompliance, I would—and I think you, Secretary Barry, referenced this, the singular benefit of the Hague Convention itself is the ability to rescind the accreditation so that the reliance on the accreditation process hopefully will ensure compliance in all aspects to explore the issue further of the requirements of the sending country. And I would hope that the Chinese Government would reconsider some of their requirements, some of their benchmarks, if you will, or criteria, as policies change in the sending countries that would be reflected in the requirements that would be imposed upon the accredited agencies; is that an accurate statement?
Ms. BARRY. Most assuredly, that will be done once a year.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DELAHUNT. Could you comment on—you probably—I am sure you heard my comments regarding Guatemala. Can you give us an update, and is there hope in terms of what is occurring there?
Ms. BARRY. Sir, I am very happy to give you an update. I was in Guatemala last month with a few colleagues from the Department of State to have a very meaningful dialogue. We met very intensively with virtually everybody we thought had a significant role to play in the discussion of the future of adoption in Guatemala. That included a working group of the Executive Branch, the party leaders of Congress, some of the private attorneys and notaries who now do much of the work, and other diplomatic representatives—most specifically UNICEF.
What I came away with from that dialogue is that there is now a moment in which we can achieve some progress because the legislature is in session. They have a draft bill on the table. The Executive Branch has been working very, very hard in a working group style to bring together the interest of different agencies to see how they can actually establish a Hague-compliant adoption process.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Let me ask you this question: Would it be of value if Members of Congress in, as you say they are, in session, now would it be of any benefit if some of us visited with our colleagues in Guatemala to express our concerns on very clear and unequivocal terms?
Ms. BARRY. The session is going to end very soon. I don't know that you would actually have time to go down. I know that a number of Members of this Congress have already expressed in writing their concern to the Guatemalan legislature. We know that there is wheeling and dealing going on within the Guatemalan Congress. I think our message got through that it is time for Guatemala to change and that we will not have a workaround. That once the U.S. Government is compliant with the Convention, that will be the only way in which adoption cases will be——
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DELAHUNT. If I can have an additional minute, Mr. Chairman.
You know, Congressman Camp and I left very concerned about what we observed in Guatemala, and as I said, very disappointed that it does not appear to have been significant progress, if any at all, at this point in time. And both he and I recommended—because it would appear to us that many of the problems associated with adoption in Guatemala could be identified by denominating the lawyers in Guatemala that appeared to have a disproportionate share of problem cases—that if a list were made by the Department of State for reference by prospective parents or by adoption agencies here in the United States, that these individuals were to be avoided, were not to be part of, might have some salutary impact in terms of those, that I believe are, to a significant degree, responsible for the problem.
Ms. BARRY. We are thinking in the same direction but a little differently. The Convention says that you have accredited bodies on both sides so we will be accrediting our adoption service providers. They need to know who we work with in Guatemala. Well, a for-profit attorney is not permitted under the Convention, so that is a nonstarter. So it is that kind of dialogue that we were doing in Guatemala as people sort of came to us with the what-ifs. We kept going back to the Convention to show how that could not happen.
UNICEF has really picked up the burden of working with the Congress on the specifics of their legislation. I think earlier it was mentioned that one concern is the pipeline provision. We have been careful about that to make sure that in getting feedback to appropriate parties in Guatemala, we have made that clear that we would want a clear, reasonable pipeline provision. Our statute gives one to us, and so clarity for American families on this is something that we want to end up with at the end of our diplomatic dialogue.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Payne.
Mr. PAYNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since I missed the testimony, I will yield to Mr. Pomeroy and we will save questioning for the second panel. Thank you.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Pitts.
Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What thresholds will the USCIS and State Department use in determining whether a country is no longer suitable for adoption?
Ms. SCIALABBA. We don't shut down countries arbitrarily. We think long and hard before doing that and the only time that it does happen is when it becomes clear that the best interest of the children are not being served, that there are serious problems that can't be resolved. We don't take that lightly, and we don't invoke that lightly.
Ms. BARRY. We receive reports from our office overseas and they do, from time to time, point out systemic problems in the adoption process of a specific government. What we then do is try and determine how to work with that government so that we can overcome those systemic problems. And we have so far been able to find interested agencies, interested NGOs and others to help us in that work. So as my colleague mentioned, the only time we have not been able to account this into maintaining an adoption program has been in Cambodia.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. PITTS. What about the change in the orphan definition under the IAA? And what are the practical implications for U.S. adoption of that?
Ms. SCIALABBA. The changes apply only whenever the ascending countries, head country, signature to the Hague Convention—I think in my opening statement, I mentioned that one of the benefits of the definition is that you can have an adoption of a child who has two living parents, whereas that is not the case currently. The definition of ''orphan'' that is in the INA currently 101B—1F, I believe, is ''will remain in effect for countries that are not signatories to the Hague Convention.''
Mr. PITTS. Madam Secretary, I met with the First Lady of Guatemala and her staff when she was here a few weeks ago. She expressed a concern that some of the babies were being trafficked. What are you looking for as far as their legislative package?
Ms. BARRY. The number one thing we are looking for in the legislative package from the Guatemalan countries is clarity on who will be the clarifying authority—who it will be for Guatemala. By naming an Executive Agency Branch that will have the responsibilities under the Convention, then we know who our partner is to talk to on the nitty-gritty of developing procedures, and possibly undertaking some capacity building in Guatemala. The other thing that has sealed progress in Guatemala is internal discussion over whether or not Guatemala's ratification of the Convention was properly done. Part of what the dialogue is in Guatemala today is to sort of set aside that domestic dispute, reaffirm that the Convention is enforced in Guatemala, and to allow the Congress to go forward and provide the implementing legislation so that the people who are interested in working for children can move forward.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. SMITH. Mr. Pomeroy.
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing and your thoughtful statement that you have advanced. Clearly you have delved deeply into this issue. During the years I have been in Congress, I have been blessed with becoming the adoptive parent of two children from Korea, so we could not be talking about a topic that strikes more close to home. I am particularly struck, Mr. Chairman, by your statement on page 3. While I believe every child has a right to grow up in a loving family, I also believe there is no right to adopt. And you get to the requirements then, appropriately applied to make absolutely certain that every international adoption executed in the United States meets every standard of rigorous scrutiny as to the appropriateness of the home in terms of full compliance with the country who has allowed their children to be placed in international adoption. I want to say a word about those countries.
Some have felt there is an international stigma against being a country that allows its babies to be placed for adoption internationally. I will tell you, as a Member of Congress, but more appropriately, as an adoptive parent, I see it completely differently. I believe countries that allow international adoptions place above all else the interest of their children and they know that the interest of that child is best advanced by being raised in a family. Hopefully, and in most cases, that family can be found within the domestic country, the country of birth. When that is not possible, the interest of that child being raised in a family should override the interest of that child being kept in the country and being raised in an orphanage. And they have placed a value, a national statement about the value of this country toward its children by allowing them to be raised in families.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Those are countries for whose values we could have deep respect. But we must be absolutely certain any question they might have about the appropriateness of the placement is met in full by the rigorous activities on our side. That is why I am so pleased that Congress has finally passed the Hague Treaty, and in my own view, we don't need legislation at this point. I think the Hague Treaty gives us plenty.
We need to have hearings like this to make sure the regulations are unfolding to the letter and in full spirit we are executing under the Hague Treaty. The country I would ask specifically about: Guatemala. You know, it is very possible that if things don't improve with Guatemala, this isn't going to be a relationship that can continue. The tragedy, of course, would be for the babies that can't find families within the country of Guatemala, but to find loving families here. But we are not going to sully the reputation of international adoption by engaging with a country that we can't feel great about in terms of whether or not everything is being perfectly handled on that end.
Do either of your Agencies look at other countries where new relationships might be established? Because certainly, we have families in this country that would like to have the miracle of parenting, that I have had personally, in international context.
Ms. BARRY. Yes, sir. We are engaged around the world in a number of diplomatic dialogues in the role of intercountry adoption. First, to get to your first point about the stigma that still attaches to the idea of intercountry adoption, we have a number of efforts underway through international visitors' programs, roundtables with experts from the United States, to try and overcome some prejudices that might remain in the minds of certain elements of the public. With regard to countries that are not now sending many children to loving families through intercountry adoption, we have had certain governments, and some governments particularly, admit that this is a problem for them. That they know they have too many children, many orphaned through HIV/AIDS whom they can not take care of, and that they need some assistance in developing the legal framework and a capacity to review cases appropriately for the suitability of the parent and the bonafide status of the child as an orphan.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And with the Hague—the guardian of the Convention and other countries, we are clearly committed to engaging with these countries to try and help them do a variety of things getting their legal framework in alliance. Many times it has been UNICEF that has picked up that particular job. And other countries that receive a lot of orphans, such as France, Spain, Italy, Germany, the Nordic countries are willing to partner with us.
So we think that we, in fact, will have a very active diplomatic agenda over the next couple of years.
Mr. POMEROY. I really appreciate that. I want to underscore that I bet there is quite a bit of congressional enthusiasm generated from the enthusiasm our constituents have for expanding those opportunities. Thank you for that.
As I look on the chart of page 8, Romania jumps out as a country that shuts the door on international adoption, at least to the United States. They certainly haven't dealt in a completely successful way with creating within Romania a 100 percent domestic placement with families for these children that need families.
What is the fate of these children now that they are not being placed in international adoption?
Ms. BARRY. Well, unfortunately, sir, evidence is increasingly coming forward that their fate is very problematic, that some arrangements that have been provided for specific children have not worked out to their benefit. We think that that information is, in fact, troubling the Government of Romania, especially their child welfare experts, but there is still this problem of their view of what they are required to do in order to join the European Union.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Now we have two votes from the European Parliament. Two resolutions passed that make it quite clear that the European Parliament does not view the Draconian measures that Romania took as necessary for them to join the European Union. There is some thinking that once Romania is firmly in the European Union that there will be more effort from the other members of that union to help Romania resolve some of the systemic child welfare problems. Whether or not that will end up changing their specific statute on intercountry adoptions, I cannot say, but I do know a number of people are watching——
Mr. POMEROY. I appreciate the sensitivity. This is a decision these countries have to make themselves that goes right to their soul in terms of figuring this out, and we will respect their decisions.
What I do not respect—in fact, what absolutely appalls me—is the role this official out of the United Kingdom has had on behalf of the EU in condemning children to upbringings in under funded orphanages because, in her view, international adoption should not move forward. And I understand, further, that even—if you want to get into the background of this individual, there may have been some personal prejudices largely at play with the execution of her ministerial duties. I believe the harm that this one person has impacted is horrific in a real-personal sense in terms of the diminished lives of the children impacted as we see the Romanian adoptions drop to nothing.
And you know what? What you have said sounds fine, but it does not seem like there is enough there. You know, here we have a country, we have families that can provide beautiful homes for beautiful children who need them, and if all of this is ground to a halt because of some misapprehension created by one official out of England—come on. This is the United States of America. We have more we can do to, perhaps, address this situation.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the end, we will always respect what Romania will decide, but you have not given me enough with your response to know that we have pushed this as hard as we could.
Ms. BARRY. Well, I am sorry, sir. I can absolutely assure you that the U.S. Ambassador of Romania, Ambassador Taubman, is personally committed to this topic; and he looks for every opportunity in Romania that he can get to jog the officials to prepare the public for a realistic reassessment of what they are doing for children in their country as well as trumpeting the resolutions of the European Parliament so that it is quite clear that the views of that one individual who was a rapporteur for a while—it is clear that that does not reflect where the European Union now stands. So the Ambassador is very, very proactive on this.
Mr. POMEROY. I thank the witness for the response; and Mr. Chairman, I mean, given your interest in this area, this might be one area where Congress can also look at ways where we could assist the Ambassador in trying to deliver this message as loud and clear as we can.
I thank the panel. I thank the Chairman for letting me participate.
Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Pomeroy, very much for your statement, but also for, again, bringing up Romania.
As my friend knows, I offered a resolution that passed the House, nearly unanimously, calling on the Romanian Government to at least facilitate the adoption of the pipeline cases that went totally unlistened to by Bucharest. We have held 2-hour-long hearings with families who are waiting for their children. The place was literally packed and we actually had the Romanian Ambassador testify, and still nothing has happened.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As my good friend and colleague, Mr. Pomeroy, pointed out a moment ago, Lady Nicholson has such a prejudicial view when it comes to adoption. She is so antagonistic to it and she totally misused her position as rapporteur for EU ascension for Romania to cower the legislature in Bucharest to end international adoptions.
My concern is it is not just in Romania, but that very misguided view is at least risking other countries in the European Union who may take that view as well. I want to applaud our mission, not just in Bucharest, but especially in encouraging the European Parliament to take the action it took. Because that is not what we intended and yet the damage has been done; and, so far, there is no realistic expectation it is going to be undone.
We had, as I said, those two hearings. We heard from experts that said that those little children in those orphanages are actually suffering not just physical but also mental diminishment of their capabilities because of the less-than-adequate nature of those orphanages.
I, myself, made many visits during the '80s into the '90s to Romania on behalf of human rights issues. I remember being in the orphanages right after Ceausescu fell in the December 1989 revolution. I was there in January, and I saw 60 kids lined up who could not even be turned, could not even be changed because there was insufficient help. That has not changed in many ways in 2006.
International adoption provided a loving home for those individuals that, unfortunately, the EU through Lady Nicholson has ended for the time being. I would hope that we would redouble our efforts. I am really glad that Mr. Pomeroy brought that up. Because we have raised it, we have raised it, we have passed resolutions, and nothing seems to happen. So——
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. BARRY. Well, sir, we certainly share your frustration, and I can just say that, at the highest levels of the Department of State, we are looking for every opportunity we can to change minds and try and get this situation corrected. We are certainly not sitting on any information that is derogatory to the Government of Romania, information that comes to us about children who are suffering because of inadequate institutional care. We are certainly sharing with appropriate NGOs and others in the European Union to make sure that we can speak with a unified diplomatic voice.
Mr. SMITH. Let me just ask two final questions, if I could, and then go to our next panel.
The number of United States adoptions from Russia has decreased this year. I wonder if you could tell us what the reasons for that are. Does that have anything to do with the post-adoption surveys that are not being complied with? What are we doing to try to resolve that?
And, secondly, how far has the USCIS come in working with the State Department on the case tracking system? What information would be on hand? Who would have access to it? Is this a joint process? Will there ever be a single, integrated tracking system or will you have two separate databases? How is that going to work?
Ms. BARRY. Sir, I will take your first question on Russia.
We would attribute the main problem in Russia with the change in their bureaucratic structure for handling intercountry adoptions and specifically the new licensing requirements that they set up for foreign adoption agencies. We think that most of our U.S. adoption agencies are over that hurdle now. They have complied with, actually, two pieces of legislation that came out: Registering as an adoption agency and registering as an NGO. So we think that the systemic problems won't have an impact this coming year.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With regard to the case management issue, as I think I mentioned earlier, we will have two separate systems that reflect that we do different things, but there will be an interface between us so that the information relevant to both will be shared quickly in real time so that, for example, the minute USCIS approved a petition, that information would be shared with us. So we will—we are—we always include each other at all of our systems development meetings to make sure that we do not take a step precipitously that would unduly harm our partner.
Ms. SCIALABBA. I would just echo what Ms. Barry has said. We are working in tandem with developing the systems. They are Web-based, they will interface, and we are very pleased with the cooperation and the effort that we are both putting into that.
Mr. SMITH. The focus of the hearing, obviously, is on Hague compliance and implementation. What about the more than 100 countries that have not signed on to the Hague Convention and have not ratified? How will our adoption procedures be differentiated with those countries and the Hague countries?
Ms. BARRY. Well, the adoptions will continue to be processed under the Immigration and Naturalization Act, so from the point of view of the Department of State, there won't be that much difference. We will still be issuing an immigrant visa at the end of the process. We will still be receiving the petition from USCIS and appropriate data from USCIS.
Mr. SMITH. Well, can I ask you, since the Hague Convention was put into place to bring greater transparency and more uniformity to the way adoptions occur, and protect the best interest of the child, aren't there lessons learned from the Hague implementation that should automatically spill over to how we do all intercountry adoptions?
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Ms. SCIALABBA. Yes, that is one of the things that we are currently doing. We are revamping the entire process, taking lessons learned and applying those lessons to the process that will still be in place for countries that are not part of the Hague Convention. So, yes, and I think one of the things would be the case management system. That is one of the things that I think will help that process.
Mr. SMITH. Would you provide us a detailed list of examples, as comprehensive as you can make it, of where the standards of Hague will be matched or will now influence the standards for non-Hague countries?
Ms. SCIALABBA. Certainly.
Mr. SMITH. I would appreciate that.
[The information referred to follows:]
WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM MS. SCIALABBA TO QUESTION ASKED DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH
The key principles of the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (the Convention) strengthen protections for adopted children by:
Ensuring that intercountry adoptions take place in the best interests of children; and
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Preventing the abduction, exploitation, sale, or trafficking of children.
As Convention and Intercountry Adoption Act (IAA) requirements are based on these principles, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) fully expects that best practices for processing intercountry cases will emerge from implementation of the Convention and IAA. Once implemented, USICS will be able to identify these practices and, where possible and appropriate, implement similar practices for non-Hague countries.
Mr. SMITH. I want to thank our very distinguished witnesses for being here, for your leadership; and I look forward to hearing back from you as we move forward. Thank you so much.
Ms. BARRY. Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. SMITH. The second panel of our witnesses today consists of two accrediting entities named by the Department of State to accredit adoption agencies or approve persons and to oversee the agencies. They are accrediting the agencies in 49 States.
Let me just introduce our next two witnesses, first, beginning with Mr. Richard Klarberg, who has served as the President and CEO of the Council on Accreditation since October 2001. He has over 30 years of not-for-profit management experience. Prior to joining the Council on Accreditation, he was Senior Vice President for North Shore Long Island Jewish Health System. Mr. Klarberg also served on the Council of Accreditation's Board of Trustees for 5 years.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Then we will hear from Ms. Dana Andrews, who is a Licensing Administrator in the Division of Child Care of the Colorado Department of Human Services. Ms. Andrews has 24 years of experience with child care licensing, including the licensing of all types of child care facilities and child placement agencies, including for domestic and international adoption agencies. She is primarily responsible for developing rules for all types of child care facilities and agencies and works closely with the provider community to develop the rules and licensing procedures.
Mr. Klarberg, if you could begin.
STATEMENT OF MR. RICHARD KLARBERG, PRESIDENT AND CEO, COUNCIL ON ACCREDITATION
Mr. KLARBERG. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and good morning, Ranking Member Payne and distinguished Members of the Committee.
May I say at the outset how deeply appreciative we are for the efforts of this Committee and this Congress for the work you have done not only in the area of intercountry adoption but also in the area of trafficking and children. There are very few issues that are as pressing as these, and we appreciate your commitment to that.
The Council on Accreditation is proud to have been designated by the Department of State as the sole national accrediting entity under the terms of the Intercountry Adoption Act, and I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you.
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would like to note also, Mr. Chairman, the presence of my colleague, Jane Schmidt, and a member of my board of trustees, Mr. Timothy Noker, both supporters of this effort.
Mr. Chairman, the Council on Accreditation (COA) has had a long history of accreditation. We were founded in 1977 by the Child Welfare League of America and what was then the Family Services of America, now the Alliance for Children and Families. Today, these two preeminent organizations have been joined in supporting COA by such other groups as Catholic Charities U.S.A., Lutheran Social Services, the Association of Jewish Family and Children's Agencies, Volunteers of America, Children's Home Society of America, and—of special note—my colleagues from the Joint Council on International Children's Services and the National Council for Adoption.
Today, the Council on Accreditation is the leading accreditor of human service organizations in the United States. We currently accredit more than 1,500 private and public social service organizations providing services to more than 7 million vulnerable people annually.
For the past 20 years, it is important to note COA has been the only accreditor of agencies involved in intercountry adoption. We currently accredit 59 placing agencies and many more home study and post-placement service providers. It is this experience that underlies our confidence in our ability to carry forward the spirit and the letter of the Intercountry Adoption Act and the Hague Convention.
At COA, we view accreditation as a strategy, a strategy that adoption providers can employ to strengthen, measure and validate their credibility, integrity and organizational effectiveness. The essential characteristics of COA accreditation are the use of volunteer surveyors and organizational self-evaluation and a process that emphasizes working with candidates in a collegial and facilitative manner. These same characteristics are present in the Hague process.
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Moreover, like COA's traditional accreditation, the Hague process looks at an entire adoption organization—its governance, professional leadership, financial management, insurance, staff training, and qualifications and client counseling to name just a few components. Perhaps the only substantive difference between the Hague process and that of the traditional COA model is that COA focuses on every aspect of management as well as providing services more intensely through the post-adoption phase.
Nonetheless, the Hague accreditation is a milestone in international human services. Unlike most conventions, it not only sets forth principles but it requires the implementation of those principles and the validation of the implementation of those principles. As such, it provides a meaningful incentive for adoption service providers here in this country to employ best practices that protect the rights of children, biological families and adoptive families and to ensure that those same rights and responsibilities are being carried out abroad.
Given the limited time allotted to me, I would like to briefly touch on three key issues: The cost of accreditation, the technical assistance we will provide to assist adoption service providers in navigating the standards, and the process we will deploy to monitor compliance with the standards.
As to the cost, we recognize that many intercountry adoption service providers are small organizations. They are either individual providers or very valuable, small agencies throughout the country. We recognize that the cost of accreditation and approval has been of great concern. In fact, through November 9th, I am pleased to report that we had received applications from 97 service providers. Of this number, 54 were from providers with budgets less than $500,000; and as of yesterday, Mr. Chairman, we had received applications from 126 providers with the same ratio. So the cost of accreditation has not had a chilling effect on organizations stepping forward. As you may know, the deadline for submitting applications to be in the first flight of accreditation is November 17th, so we expect this number to increase until that time.
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Recognizing that the preponderance of applications would come from small providers, COA placed great emphasis on developing a fee structure that would not preclude small providers from seeking accreditation because of cost. Thus, the fee for an organization with a Hague-related budget of less than $500,000 is $6,850. Mr. Chairman, $6,850 is for a 4-year accreditation, so the annual cost is $1,712. Moreover, we have arranged for organizations to be able to pay this fee incrementally over several months. And let me also say, Mr. Chairman, that it is our philosophy as a not-for-profit organization and it is our practice that the capacity to pay a fee will never interfere with the opportunity for an organization to seek accreditation.
Of course, it is important to recognize that there are additional costs involved in meeting the standards—financial audits, insurance and staff training in particular. But these are costs, Mr. Chairman, that will strengthen an organization, that will strengthen its capacity to provide appropriate services and to protect the rights of children and biological and adoptive families.
With regard to technical assistance, COA has a history of viewing accreditation as a facilitative process, not an adversarial one. Our goal is to work with Hague applicants to ensure that the process is not only constructive but transformational. In essence, we see the accreditation process as a partnership. This is especially true for small agencies and even more so for small agencies that are unfamiliar with accreditation. To assist them, COA has currently staffed two full-time positions devoted to the process—solely devoted to the process—and we are in the process of hiring two additional staff. Together with our entire experienced staff, we will provide the necessary technical assistance to serve these small agencies.
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Finally, in connection with ensuring compliance with the standards, COA places great emphasis in conducting a thorough evaluation of each adoption service provider's compliance, not only with Hague standards, not only with State licensing rules but also with applicable foreign laws. Our surveyors are specially trained to review documents during the site visit and to interview members of the agency's board, staff and clients to ascertain compliance with those regulations. Nonetheless, it should be recognized that accreditation is not a silver bullet. It is a snapshot in time.
What accreditation can ensure, however, Mr. Chairman, is that performance improvement plans will be instituted to preclude repetitive instances of noncompliance. We think that this alone will facilitate more countries' looking to the United States and looking to be part of the Hague process. Of course, we will also utilize the databases being developed by the State Department and work in close partnership with them.
I would like to thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for affording me the opportunity to briefly describe COA's efforts in implementing the IAA and the Hague Convention. Like each of you and your colleagues, we are committed to protecting the rights of children, their biological families and their adoptive families. To do so, we recognize that we must ensure that adoption service providers completely adhere to standards of best practice. After all, as you well know, Mr. Chairman, when it comes to vulnerable children, when it comes to vulnerable families, whether here or abroad, ''good enough'' is not good enough, and it never will be.
Thank you very much, and I will look forward to your questions.
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Mr. Klarberg follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF MR. RICHARD KLARBERG, PRESIDENT AND CEO, COUNCIL ON ACCREDITATION
Good afternoon Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Payne and distinguished members of the Committee.
My name is Richard Klarberg, and I am the President & Chief Executive Officer of the Council on Accreditation. COA is proud to have been designated by the Department of State as the sole national accrediting entity under the terms of the Intercountry Adoption Act and appreciate the opportunity to appear before you this afternoon.
COA has had a long history of accreditation. We were founded in 1977 by the Child Welfare League of America and what was then Family Services of America (now the Alliance for Children & Families). Today these two pre-eminent national organizations have been joined in supporting COA by such other groups as Catholic Charities USA, Lutheran Social Services, the Association of Jewish Family & Children's Agencies, Volunteers of America, Children's Home Society of America, and—of special note—the Joint Council on International Children's Services and the National Council for Adoption.
Today, COA is the leading accreditor of human service organizations in the United States. We currently accredit more than 1,500 private and public social service organizations providing services to more than 7 million vulnerable people annually.
For the past 20 years, COA has been the only accreditor of agencies involved in intercountry adoption. We currently accredit 59 placing agencies and many more home study and post-placement service providers. It is this experience that underlies our confidence in our ability to carry forward the spirit and letter of the Intercountry Adoption Act and the Hague Convention.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
At COA, we view accreditation as a strategy that adoption providers can employ to strengthen, measure and validate their credibility, integrity and organizational effectiveness.
The essential characteristics of COA accreditation are the use of volunteer surveyors, an organizational self-evaluation and a process that emphasizes working with candidates in a collegial and facilitative manner. These same characteristics are present in the Hague process.
Moreover, like COA's traditional accreditation, the Hague process looks at an entire adoption organization—its governance, professional leadership, financial management, staff training and qualifications, and client counseling, to name just a few components. Perhaps the only substantive difference between the Hague process and that of the traditional COA model is that COA focuses on every aspect of management, as well as providing services through to the post-adoption stage, whereas the Hague Convention is limited to post-placement services.
Nonetheless, Hague accreditation is a milestone in international human services. Unlike most conventions, it not only sets forth principles but requires that the implementation of those principles be validated. As such, it provides a meaningful incentive for adoption service providers to employ best practices that protect the rights of children, biological families and adoptive families.
Given the limited time allotted to me, I would like to briefly touch on three key issues: the cost of accreditation, the technical assistance we will provide to assist adoption service providers in navigating the standards and the process we will deploy to monitor compliance with the standards.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As to the cost, we recogn