> December 10, 2003
>
> To: U.S. Department of State
>
> CA/ OCS/ PRI
>
> Adoption Regulations Docket Room
>
> SA-29
>
> 2201 C Street, NW
>
> Washington, D.C. 20520
>
> Electronically emailed to: <adoptionregs@state.gov>
>
> Re: **State/ AR-01/ 98**
>
> **UFF Comments on 22 CFR Parts 96 and 98**
>
> **Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption; Intercountry Adoption Act
> of 2000; Accreditation of Agencies; Approval of Persons; Preservations
> of Convention Records; Proposed Rules**

####### Submitted by: Lynn L. Wetterberg, Executive Director

> Table of Contents
>
> Page Number
>
> I. Introduction; Adverse Impact on Small Agencies 2
>
> II\. General Summary of Significant Concerns 3
>
> III\. Specific Comments and Recommendations on the Regulations 4
>
> a\. Subpart B -- 96.4 4
>
> b\. Subpart F -- 96.33 4
>
> c\. Subpart F -- 96.37 7
>
> d\. Subpart F -- 96.38 8
>
> e\. Subpart F -- 96.39 8
>
> f\. Subpart F -- 96.40 9
>
> g\. Subpart F -- 96.45 & 96.46 10
>
> h\. Subpart F -- 96.49 12
>
> i\. Subpart K 13

IV. Conclusion 14

> V. Appendices

a.  Statement of Allan Hersh, Insurance Agent

b.  Samples of UFF Estimated Expense Disclosures

c.  UFF Informed Consent

I. Introduction; Adverse Impact on Small Agencies

Uniting Families Foundation (UFF) is a very small agency in Illinois
providing home study, pre-adoptive education, placement and
post-placement services for families pursuing international adoption.
UFF provides a unique resource for working and middle class families
with the heart to adopt older and other special-needs children but
without extensive financial resources. In 2002, UFF completed 20
adoptions, 11 of which were older children. In 2003 we anticipate
placing only 15 children, 5 of which are over the age of 5. UFF's fees
for older/special needs adoptions are greatly reduced. For example,
total agency and foreign fee for an older child in Russia has previously
been just \$5,000. This fee structure enabled many children to find
loving parents. As explained below, if the Hague regulations are
enforced as written, UFF will either have to double its fees to families
or cease operations, thus eliminating this unique and invaluable
resource for the adoption of special needs children.

In June 1999 UFF was the first agency of its size to complete the full
Council on Accreditation (COA) process for international adoption
services. We did not pursue re-accreditation in June of this year as we
understood that "deemed status" would not be granted in the Hague
Regulations and did not wish to go through the expense of two
accreditation processes. UFF does not plan to seek temporary
accreditation under subpart N, but would pursue regular accreditation
**if** the regulations are changed to ease the financial burden on small
agencies.

As a CPA and UFF's Executive Director, I estimate that in order for UFF,
*a previously COA accredited entity*, to comply with the regulations set
forth in this draft of the proposed rules, the following additional
costs would be incurred:

Increase in cash reserves \$20,000

Direct costs for COA (based on current charges) 8,000

Indirect cost for accreditation 2,000

Professional Risk Assessment 5,000

Additional Insurance Cost 35,000

Additional Payroll & Training Expense [10,000]{.underline}

Total \$80,000

Like most of our families, UFF lacks deep pockets. It has no endowment
and the majority of our fundraising efforts go to humanitarian relief:
providing food, clothing and medical supplies for orphans and families
in Russia, Romania and Moldova. Significantly, the abandonment rate has
been reduced in one area of Russia by 35% through milk kitchens funded
by UFF. As most of the donations to UFF go toward the support of
humanitarian relief projects, the additional costs outlined above will
have to be passed directly to families.

To be sure, complaints voiced by families and advocacy groups that
fueled the International Adoption Act (IAA) and these regulations are
valid and should be appropriately addressed. There are rogue agencies
and unscrupulous facilitators that need to be rigorously regulated.
However, what is proposed will have an adverse rather than a positive
effect on international adoption. The presumption that raising the
financial accountability of adoption agencies and fostering litigation
against them will insure ethical adoption practices is wrong. Neither
large volumes of adoptions nor the relative wealth of adoption agencies
equates with ethics or accountability. Moreover, rather than preserving
litigation options for parents, the regulations should seek to insure
that prospective adopting parents understand and knowingly accept the
risks necessarily inherent in that process. The regulations as proposed
will cause the closing of many small agencies that will be unable to
comply with the rules as proposed, significantly limiting the
availability of services to prospective and adoptive families.

##### II. General Summary of Significant Concerns

**Recommend an additional public comment period.**

As an initial modest proposal, UFF requests that the Department of State
(Department) extend the public comment period and publish a revised
version of the proposed regulations instead of issuing final
regulations. First, there are concerns within the adoption community
that some of the regulations may be unconstitutional. Second, several of
the regulations must be further clarified and time to debate these
clarifications is essential. Third and most importantly to UFF, the
effects of the regulations on the survival of small agencies must be
addressed, making further dialog on this issue crucial.

**96.33 Budget, audit, insurance and risk assessment requirements**

Implementation of the proposed budget, audit, insurance and risk
assessment regulations will prohibit many small agencies from working in
Hague Countries. This section of the regulations does nothing to ensure
ethical practices but imposes requirements that are cost prohibitive and
unrealistic for many agencies, particularly small and cost-conscious
ones such as UFF.

Insurance representatives explain that the inability to obtain liability
or Directors and Officers insurance in many states is a reaction to
recent lawsuits filed against the Catholic Church and other child
centered organizations. Insurers no longer wish to issue new policies to
child welfare organizations. This situation is beyond the control of
agencies providing international adoption services but prevents many
agencies from complying with the proposed Hague regulations. Further,
UFF has been informed that its liability insurance policy **cannot** be
extended to overseas or domestic, supervised providers. Most adoption
agencies, therefore, simply cannot comply with this regulation as
proposed. If this regulation remains unaltered, UFF respectfully
requests direct intervention from the U.S. government in the form of
underwriting the insurance for Hague-accredited agencies.

**Service Planning and Delivery**

**96.45 and 96.46 -- Using Supervised Providers in the United States and
in other Convention Countries.**

UFF has profound concern about sections 96.45 and 96.46. The IAA stated
the "intent to give the adoptive parents legal recourse against a single
entity so far as is reasonable" but the regulations upset the landscape
of the adoption community by preventing the networking of Hague and
non-Hague agencies and making unreasonable demands on agencies pursuing
Hague accreditation.

**III. [Specific Comments and Recommendations on the
Regulations]{.underline}**

**Subpart B -- Selection, Designation, and Duties of Accrediting
Entities**

**96.4 Designation of accrediting entities by the Secretary**

In October the Department sent out a letter requesting that any
organization interested in becoming an accrediting entity submit an RSI
by November 16, 2003. This was supposedly sent out to both private and
public bodies. The requirements of the RSI were quite extensive, making
it almost impossible for state licensing agencies and others not
currently providing accreditation services to submit an RSI by that
deadline. To prevent a monopoly or oligopoly from occurring, UFF
requests that the time for providing an RSI be lengthened to give more
state agencies and organizations an opportunity to apply.

######## Subpart F -- Standards for Convention Accreditation and Approval

**96.33 Budget, audit, insurance and risk assessment requirements**

**96.33 (e)**

In sub-section (e) the regulations require cash reserves or other
financial resources to meet an agency's operating expenses for three
months. There are cyclical periods of down time in international
adoption, especially during the summer months when many foreign
countries close for holidays and do not process cases. Moreover,
unpredictable changes in foreign countries often result in temporary
loss of budgeted income. Reserves that decline during these periods are
typically recouped later.

UFF's concerns with subsection 96.33(e) are summarized as follows:

-   First, three month's worth of [cash reserves]{.underline} is
    excessive for small agencies that are not funded through endowments,
    and would cause intermittent non-compliance with this regulation.

-   Second, some of the larger agencies that provide state services are
    frequently not paid for those services on a regular basis due to
    state budgetary constraints. *(e.g.*, in 2003 some Illinois agencies
    providing private services had to wait six months or more for
    payment from the state.) These agencies could lose accreditation
    through no fault of their own, as the money due to them has not been
    paid.

-   Third, requiring cash reserves of this amount causes an undue
    hardship on newly established organizations, thus barring entry by
    new agencies.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Suggested revision:*

> *(e) The agency's or person's balance sheets show that it operates on
> a sound financial basis and ~~generally~~ maintains**, on average,**
> sufficient cash reserves, **assets**, or other financial resources to
> meet its operating expense for ~~three~~ **two** months, taking into
> account its projected volume of cases.*

**96.33 (g)**

UFF seeks clarification of the meaning of an "independent professional
assessment of risks" in sub-section 96.33(g). If this requires use of an
independent risk assessment firm then the following concerns are raised:

A professional assessment of risks need not be performed by an
independent firm. Requiring review by an independent risk assessment
firm causes an extraordinary financial hardship for small agencies by
significantly raising the overall costs of accreditation. A suitable and
professional risk assessment can be performed and documented by a
combination of the agency's management, insurance agent and/or financial
and legal counsel.

Further, assessing the appropriate level of insurance during this risk
assessment reasonably requires consideration of the availability and
cost of insurance coverage. For example, the quote for Directors and
Officers insurance in Illinois received by UFF was more than \$30,000 a
year. In many states D & O insurance and general liability insurance are
either impossible to obtain or cost prohibitive.

Finally, as noted in our comments on section sub-section 96.39(d) below,
due to the confusion regarding terminology surrounding the provision, we
recommend deleting the last clause referencing "blanket waiver" for
purposes of "professional risk assessment".

-   *Suggested revision:*

> *(g) The agency or person ~~uses an independent~~ **conducts and
> documents a** professional assessment of the risks it assumes**,
> including in that assessment the availability of insurance coverage,
> its cost, and the requirements of (h) in this section,** as the basis
> for determining the type and amount of professional, general,
> directors' and officer's and other liability insurance to carry. The
> risk assessment includes an evaluation of the risks of using
> supervised providers as provided for in § 96.45 and § 96.46 and of
> providing adoption services to clients**.** ~~who, consistent with §
> 96.39(d), will not sign blanket waivers of liability.~~*

**96.33(h)**

UFF, in accordance with State of Illinois licensing laws, and in
compliance with current COA standards for agencies, has general
liability insurance in the amount of \$1,000,000 dollars per occurrence
with an aggregate of \$3,000,000 in a given year. Discussion with our
insurance provider (see Appendix) determined that coverage cannot be
extended to foreign and domestic supervised providers under its current
policy and that this type of coverage is unavailable in Illinois.
Therefore, should UFF seek to become accredited under the Hague, it
would be unable to network with other non-accredited providers and would
be limited to working only with government and/or other organizations
overseas that are also accredited by Central Authorities. As a small
agency that often relies on networking with other organizations, this
regulation would have a severe, adverse impact on UFF and its ability to
operate its established programs, resulting in the placement of fewer
children.

The IAA does not specify a dollar amount for insurance and simply states
in sec. 203(b)(1)(E): "The agency agrees to have in force adequate
liability insurance for professional negligence and any other insurance
that the Secretary considers appropriate." The standards set by
accrediting entities, state laws, and the risk assessment completed
according to sub-section 96.33(g) should determine what is "adequate"
insurance for an agency/approved person.

-   *Suggested revision:*

> *(h) The agency or person maintains **adequate** insurance in amounts
> **in accordance with state law** **and** reasonably related to its
> exposure to risk.*

UFF urges the Department to use its resources to assist the adoption
community in finding ways to comply with the liability insurance
requirements. Private insurance companies are taking the position that
they will not provide coverage for the primary provider framework of
liability as proposed in sections 96.45 and 96.46. Individual adoption
agencies lack the market power to spur reconsideration of such coverage
by the insurance industry. It may therefore be necessary for the
Department to underwrite the insurance to enable agencies to comply with
this regulation.

######## 

######## 

######## Professional Qualifications and Training for Employees

**96.37(f) Master's Degree Requirement**

Requiring the home study preparer to have a Master's in Social Work will
have a negative effect on the entire adoption community for the
following reasons:

-   Many caseworkers currently completing home studies have a Bachelor's
    Degree, not a Master's Degree.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   If a caseworker with a bachelor's degree is no longer able to
    provide home study services, hundreds of caseworkers experienced in
    international adoption will lose their jobs.

-   There are not enough people with both a Master's in social work and
    experience in international adoption to replace all those employees
    who would no longer qualify.

-   Schools of social work do not teach classes in international
    adoption. Rather, most of this knowledge is learned in the field.
    The majority of those currently completing home studies for families
    have vast knowledge of the field and the risks associated with
    international adoption. Putting these experienced social workers
    under the supervision of an MSW allows them to continue to screen
    and train families while still providing the clinical oversight that
    the IAA requires.

-   The requirement of home study services to be provided only by
    employees with an MSW holds agencies to a higher standard than is
    required by the IAA 8 CFR 204.3(b) and is unnecessary to provide
    quality services to families and children.

-   The increased expense of having to hire MSW's to do home studies
    would significantly increase the cost of the process and this cost
    would be passed on to adoptive families.

-   The current standard in most states is to have a Master's Degree
    supervisor review and approve a Bachelor's Degree personnel home
    study.

-   Implementation of the proposed regulation will reduce the number of
    choices for prospective adoptive parents in terms of direct service
    agencies providing home study and post placement services.

-   There appears to be unreasoned inequality in these provisions.
    Employees who conduct home studies are required to have a master's
    degree yet those described in (e) non-supervisory employees who
    apply other clinical skills and judgment may have a bachelor's
    degree in any field as long as they also have prior relevant
    experience. In addition, employees from "exempt" agencies or persons
    who only perform home studies are not held to this standard.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Suggested revision:*

> ***96.37(f)** Home studies. The agency's or person's employees who
> conduct home studies:*

1.  *Have ~~a minimum of~~ a master's degree from an accredited program
    of social work education ~~or a;~~ master's degree (or doctorate) in
    a related human service field, including, but not limited to
    psychology, psychiatry, psychiatric nursing, counseling,
    rehabilitation counseling, or pastoral counseling; **a minimum of a
    bachelor's degree from an accredited *****program of social work
    *education; or a combination of a bachelor's degree in another human
    service field with prior experience in family and children's
    services, adoption or intercountry adoption;***

> ***(4) In cases where the home study is completed by an employee with
> a bachelor's degree, the home study must be reviewed and approved by a
> supervisor who meets the requirements for supervisors in 96.37(d).***

**96.38(c)**

UFF recommends that training be changed from 20 hours annually to **[30
hours over a 2 year period.]{.underline}**

The time allotment for employee training is currently denoted as 20
hours in the regulation. However, many training seminars, conferences
and other programs are denoted in 7 or 8 hour daily increments. We
recommend that the training be changed to 30 hours over a two-year
period. A two-year average of 15 hours per year of continuing education
for a two-year licensing period is standard for master\'s level
providers in several states. If training is provided outside of the
agency, the agency must cover both the cost of the training and the loss
in staff hours. This can become a financial and scheduling burden,
especially for small agencies, which may also be dealing with maternity
and family leave situations. Giving two years to complete the training
gives agencies the flexibility they need to comply.

**Information Disclosure, Fee Practices, and Quality Control Policies
and Practices**

**96.39(d) Blanket Waivers of Liability**

UFF seeks a clarification on what is meant by a "blanket waiver of
liability". Current law in every state vigilantly voids waivers that are
overreaching or unreasonable under the circumstances. International
adoption is necessarily associated with known as well as unforeseen
risks and asking prospective adoptive parents to sign an informed
assumption of risk document is therefore standard within the adoption
community. The Department acknowledges those risks within the proposed
Hague Regulations. Indeed, part of the job of a responsible adoption
agency is informing prospective adoptive families of those risks as
outlined in section 96.48 (Preparation and training of prospective
adoptive parents in incoming cases). Once prepared through educational
programs, should families decide to continue in the adoption process
they should be considered "informed consumers" capable of accepting the
risks inherent in that process, and banning that process fosters
litigation (as well as the demise of small organizations like UFF)
without alleviating the risks themselves. UFF proposes a system of
education and disclosure rather than litigation.

-   *Suggested revision:*

*Current provision in 96.39(d) be eliminated and replaced with:*

> *(d) The agency or person **[may]{.underline}** require a client or
> prospective client to sign a waiver of liability in connection with
> the provision of adoption services in Convention cases, **[provided
> that such waiver specifies in clear language the multiple risks of
> intercountry adoption.]{.underline}***

This modification encourages the identification and full disclosure of
risks to prospective adoptive parent(s). Please consult *Appendix E*,
which is the Informed Consent currently used by UFF.

40. **Fee Policies and Procedures**

The references throughout this section should be changed to "estimated"
expenses because expenses have not been incurred at this point in the
adoption process and will reasonably vary depending on the time of year
and length of travel.

-   *Suggested Revision*

> ***96.40(b)** Before providing any adoption service to prospective
> adoptive parent(s), the agency or person itemizes and discloses in
> writing the following information for each separate category of fees
> and **[estimated]{.underline}** expenses that the prospective adoptive
> parent(s) will be charged in connection with a Convention adoption.*

**96.40(f)(3)**

-   *Suggested revision:*

> *(3) It provides written receipts to the **~~prospective~~** adoptive
> parent(s) for **[total fees collected directly by the
> agency]{.underline}** in the Convention country and retains copies of
> such receipts.*

The word "prospective" should be stricken from this subsection because
at this point in the adoption process the clients are adoptive parents
and no longer prospective.

Further, agencies should only be required to provide receipts for fees
that they themselves collect and cannot be expected to give receipts for
services, which they did not perform (*e.g.,* transportation). The
addition of the phrase "total fees collected directly by the agency"
clarifies the agency's appropriate accounting responsibility.

**Service Planning and Delivery**

**96.45 and 96.46 -- Using Supervised Providers in the United States and
in other Convention Countries.**

######### Insurance Coverage

As cited in UFF's comments under section 96.33(h), above, regarding
liability insurance, UFF is informed that it is impossible for the
agency to extend its existing insurance coverage to supervised agencies
in the United States or abroad. (See Appendix A) UFF is also informed
that it is not possible to get such coverage in the State of Illinois.
Unless insurance is underwritten by the federal government or changes
are made within the private insurance industry, UFF will be unable to
comply with this regulation.

######### Agencies providing home study, training and post-placement services

Many families currently come to UFF with a home study already completed
by a home study agency with which the family has previously contracted.
Accepting a home study prepared by another state-licensed agency is
reasonable and standard practice in the adoption community. Since UFF
cannot receive insurance coverage for its work with domestic supervised
agencies, it will be limited to working with families whose home studies
were prepared by an accredited agency. This will unreasonably limit the
choices families have for obtaining these services and will prevent some
families in rural areas from being able to use our placement services
and likely from adopting in Hague countries.

In addition, if UFF must institute the policy of only accepting home
studies from other accredited (and therefore insured) agencies, it is
likely that other organizations also would have to do so, thus
eliminating the ability of agencies to network and ultimately forcing
the closure of many small local service agencies.

######### Screening of Local Service Providers

As is standard practice within the adoption community, to ensure that
all appropriate adoption services are provided to prospective parents,
the Primary Provider should be permitted to contract with licensed local
service agencies for such services without acquiring liability for the
services provided by local service agencies, particularly when the
contract between the agencies outlines the duties to be performed by the
respective entities. Proof of current licensing status can be provided
to the Primary Provider to ensure that the local service agency is
legally entitled to provide such services. This arrangement would
protect adoptive families, allow for the networking of agencies in the
provision of services, and avoid the demise of small local service
agencies, including unique agencies like UFF that provide a specialized
service to families open to older/special needs adoptions.

######### Providers in Foreign Countries

It is understood that the IAA intended for adoption agencies to be
responsible for the services provided to adoptive families in foreign
countries. It is unreasonable, however, for the regulations to require
agencies to include foreign entities and persons as "named insurers" on
their policies as agencies will not be able to acquire this type of
coverage.

Moreover, the liability provisions are unnecessary because the remaining
subsections of 96.46 propose a framework for improved supervision and
accountability that is workable and satisfies the intent of the IAA.
Section 96.46 requires an agency to perform a reasonable investigation
of foreign contacts, ensure they understand and comply with the policies
of the Hague Convention and the general standards of reasonable care and
ethical practice. Agencies can further require foreign contacts to sign
contracts whereby they certify to comply with the Hague Convention
policies and continue to monitor and train the foreign contacts
concerning acceptable procedure and practice.

[Excessive Provisions]{.underline}

With the exception of the risk and liability sections, the proposed
rules offer excellent standards, a more rigorous accountability
structure, a complaint registry, and disciplinary actions. These
thorough provisions are sufficient to monitor the adoption agencies and
oversee supervised providers. To unduly alter the adoption community
landscape, destroy the network of providers, and force local service
providers out of business is antithetical to what the Department seeks
to accomplish.

We believe that instead of forcing strict legal liability, as this
regulation does, this proposed rule should focus on exercising due care
and a good faith effort to ensure supervised providers are in compliance
with the Convention.

-   *Suggested revision:*

> *Proposed rules 96.45(b)(8) and (c)(1) and (c)(2) and 96.46 (b)(9) and
> (c)(1) and (c)(2) be stricken.*

-   *If the Department refuses to strike the proposed rules above, then
    we suggest the following revisions:*

> *96.45(c) The agency or person, when acting as the primary provider
> and using supervised providers in the United States to provide
> adoption services **~~does the following in relation to risk
> management~~***
>
> *(c)(1) **~~Assumes~~** **[Shall not be deemed to have
> assumed]{.underline}** tort, contract and other civil liability to the
> prospective adoptive parent(s) **[or adoptive parent(s)]{.underline}**
> for the supervised provider's provision of the contracted adoption
> services and its compliance with the standards in this subpart F; and*
>
> *(c)(2) **~~Maintains~~** **[Need not maintain]{.underline}** a bond,
> escrow account or liability insurance sufficient to cover the risks of
> liability arising from its work with supervised providers, **[so long
> as it has a waiver of liability, signed by clients or prospective
> clients, that clarifies that the supervised provider is a separate
> entity with which the client has chosen to contract with separately
> for certain services.]{.underline}***
>
> *[(d)]{.underline} **[In view of the difficulties many agencies have
> had in the past with obtaining insurance even for their own
> corporation, staff and board, primary providers and supervised
> providers - who are typically brought together in the first instance
> by a voluntary choice of prospective adoptive parents more than by
> their own decision - may mutually agree not to pursue any legal claims
> against each other in connection with their respective provision of
> adoption services.]{.underline}***
>
> [96.46 (b)(9) and (c)(1) and (c)(2) Suggest changes that correspond to
> the parallel changes in 96.45]{.underline}

**Standards for Cases in Which a Child Is Immigrating to the United
States**

**96.49 - Provision of medical and social information in incoming
cases.**

**96.49 (e)(3) - (5):**

While most provisions of 96.49 are reasonable in specifying what medical
reports and observation reports on children should include, it also
needs to be acknowledged that due to limited medical technology and
limited access to information and basic historical data on a child,
available medical information often incomplete and inaccurate in foreign
countries. Also, many countries by law limit access to personal
information on children in order to protect the child's right to
privacy. This protection makes it difficult or impossible, in some
countries, to have access to the child's history, religious, ethnic and
full medical information. These three subsections demand disclosures of
more information than is available in many cases, putting agencies,
their representatives and overseas medical practitioners in an
impossible situation.

The Central Authority in some countries requires standardized health and
social records in adoption cases. In these cases physicians approved by
the Convention country are employed by the Convention country to do an
evaluation of the child. This evaluation is usually a summary based on
the physician's review of the full medical records and a physical exam.
Primary providers have no control over the selection and qualifications
of the physician, the items included in the medical summary or the
quality of the information provided. Only the Central Authority, and not
the primary providers, can be held accountable for the accuracy of the
information it provides.

*Suggested revisions:*

(d) *The agency or person itself uses reasonable efforts, or requires
    its supervised provider or agent in the child's country of origin
    who is responsible for obtaining medical information about the child
    on behalf of the agency or person to use reasonable efforts **within
    the confines of the convention country's laws and procedures**, to
    obtain available information, including in particular:*

(e) *If the agency or person provides medical information, **separate
    from the information provided by the convention country**, to the
    prospective adoptive parent(s) from an examination by a physician or
    from an observation of the child* *by someone who is not a
    physician, the information **should** include~~s,~~ **as reasonable
    efforts allow:***

(f) *The agency or person itself uses reasonable efforts, or requires
    its supervised provider or agent in the child's country of origin
    who is responsible for obtaining social information about the child
    on behalf of the agency or person to use reasonable efforts **within
    the confines of the convention country's laws and procedures**, to
    obtain available information, including in particular:*

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(k) *The agency or person does not withdraw a referral until the
    prospective adoptive parent(s) have had at least a week (unless
    extenuating circumstances involving the child's best interest
    require a more expedited decision) to consider the needs of the
    child and their ability to meet those needs, and to obtain physician
    review of medical information and other descriptive information
    including videotapes of the child, **if available.***

**Subpart K - Adverse Action by the Accrediting**

Subpart K fails to provide a fundamental procedural due process for
adoption agencies. The government can withdraw valuable property
interests without procedural protection to assure that the withdrawal is
fair, including notices, standards of proof, hearings, an internal
review process, etc. The lack of a grievance procedure for agencies is
in marked contrast to the protections properly offered by the
regulations to parents. While the regulations go to great length to
protect the rights of the adoptive parents, as they should, and
establish a complaint registry and accountability standards, there is no
comparable medium for agencies.

-   *Suggested additions:*

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Language as outlined in the IAA to be incorporated into regulation
    96.76*

-   *A detailed fundamental due process including notices, standards of
    proof, hearings, an internal review process, and information on how
    cases are handled during an appeal process; and*

-   *Additional detail around the transfer of Convention cases.*

**IV. [Conclusion]{.underline}**

In the Preamble, Section E, the Department states that while "bearing in
mind the desirability of minimizing the cost and burden on agencies and
persons, especially on small entities", that the standards were designed
to "ensure that Convention and IAA requirements are met and to improve
the quality of services provided to birth families, adoptive families,
and children." While the vast majority of the standards fulfill this
objective, there are several areas where the regulations have the
opposite effect.

If the regulations are left unchanged:

-   the practice of networking to provide services for families will
    end, thus limiting choices for families,

-   small local service and placement agencies will cease to exist,

-   the increase in costs to cover accreditation expenses will cause an
    undue financial hardship on families, erasing any benefits they may
    have received from tax credits, and

-   ultimately, there will be fewer families for needy children
    throughout the world.

To quote JCICS, "Hopefully, the proposed regulations recognize one of
the most critical considerations in child welfare decisions is achieving
permanency as expeditiously and inexpensively as possible. The U.S. must
guard that its own system does not become a bloated bureaucracy that
slows or prevents, rather than improves, the process of international
adoption."