**Comments on Intercountry Adoption and the Proposed Hague Regulations**

**Introduction**

Overall our family's international adoption experience was positive. We
would do it all over again in a heartbeat. I am writing to speak for our
family as well as the desperately waiting children who I saw firsthand,
who cannot speak for themselves. Undoubtedly you have already heard from
those whose experiences were negative. I think that anyone drafting
legislation that affects us, our children, and our families and our
rights should hear from us as well. More importantly anyone making these
decisions should travel to some of the "orphanages" and see first hand
the children and their living conditions before making decisions that
will determine their fate. Children's lives are at stake here. Many of
these children are beautiful, bright, and not just normal, but gifted
children like our son. They are struggling under conditions where their
emotional, spiritual, developmental, nutritional, and physical
stimulation needs cannot be met. Children may learn to survive but they
do not thrive in these environments. But they can thrive when removed to
the care of a loving family who needs them.

If we turn our backs on these children their future is grim. Some
regions have 80-90% of these children released to become prostitutes or
go to prison. Americans often think that it is not our problem. Think
again. These are the environments where extremists groups flourish and
terrorist cells spring up. The reasons are clear. The people have no
hope. They are easily sucked into anything that gives them hope whether
it is hope in this life or in the next.

Today our son is in perfect health, he has not been sick a day and has
no disorders or delayed development. He was adopted from the City
Infants' Home of a poverty ridden region of Russia at age 3 one year ago
on Independence Day.

I have noted my concerns below. Many of the provisions sound very
useful. However, it is the implementation thereof and the unintended but
unavoidable effects that are of major concern. In some instances it
would seem that [a mandatory government sponsored brochure on the
potential issues to educate adoptive families would serve
better.]{.underline}

There are no guarantees in adoption and there can be none just as with
childbirth. As with prenatal care to reduce risks of childbirth, there
are ways that families can reduce the risks of adopting children with
unwanted health and developmental problems. Families do this by
screening of child medical information in the form of videos, height,
weight, head circumference, and medical history by doctors who
specialize in this field. But as with pregnancy, there will always be
risks.

I recommend that you address the following issues before proceeding with
the proposed regulations:

1.  **Delays**

Regulation without a doubt will cause delays and increased costs in an
already long and expensive process. Delays burden families and expose
children to unreasonable time in unfavorable conditions in infant and
children's homes or foster care. Delays and increased costs caused by
regulation are not acceptable.

2.  **Increased costs**

The costs of adoption are already incredibly high. Many families who
long to adopt cannot afford it. With regulation it is inevitable that
costs are going to be higher. There are numerous foundations which
promote adoption but few which actually provide financial aid to
families. Real people, like us, will tell you that domestic adoptions
costs about \$25K and international \$30-\$45K including travel and
accommodations. (Section IV E numbers are too low.) We believe that
these costs are the legitimate costs. There are a number of people
involved in the process both here and abroad who have to be paid a fair
price for their services. In the destination country alone there are
translators, facilitators in the embassy city, facilitators in the
child's city, and drivers in both, just to name a few. There are travel
costs for parents (1 to 3 trips), child, facilitators, and periodically
agency staff. Regulation will not decrease these costs. At a minimum,
additional tax credits are needed to offset the increased costs and
excessive financial burden that this regulation will cause.

3.  **Privacy and Permanency Safeguards**

One note: Mention is made about conforming to states requirements but
not about requirements of the birth country. States and birth countries
have different requirements regarding privacy of adoption records and
parental rights.

Many families adopt internationally because of the perception of greater
chance for permanency of the placement. They do not want even the
slightest chance that a birth parent will retain the right to reclaim
parental rights at any time. Adoptive parents see this possibility in
the US domestic system. This would be very traumatic for a child who has
just learned to trust again with his new family after the first years
and months of his life where adults have failed him/her. Require
existing registries, or create an international registry that requires,
registry by both adoptee and biological parents before information can
be disclosed. Establish a penalty to prohibit anyone other than the
adoptee or adoptive parents or biological parents from disclosing the
information in the event that it is obtained by any means.

4.  **Standards for Education**

What are the standards or who determines the curriculum for the
education of pre-adoptive parents?

Education on attachment is controversial. It is evolving. The
professionals do not agree on the issues or the therapies. Love, logic
and common sense understanding go a long way. Barring any major physical
or biochemical defects or imbalances, understanding the environment
where a child came from and appropriately reacting, while giving him a
stable and secure structured environment goes a long way. Reading the
criteria for some of the disorders such as Reactive Attachment Disorder,
one would conclude that ALL three and four year olds have some degree of
the disorder. There do not seem to be any clear guidelines or
understanding for the "condition" or the treatment. Many of the symptoms
named are natural consequences of life in a children's home as opposed
to life in a family environment. Children can and do adjust without
intervention.

5.  **Comparison to the Domestic System**

Who will regulate agencies and the process? Will it be the same
miserable mess as the American domestic adoption system which has driven
many families to international.

What is being done to insure that our adoptions are permanent? Will
parents have to fear as with domestic adoptions that at any time a
biological parent will come forward and have parental rights restored
and their child who has become part of their family be torn away from
them to start over? Or will you guarantee the permanency of our
families?

6.  **Offensive Terminology and Labels**

Consider replacing the term "[institutionalized children]{.underline}"
(or any other forms thereof) used in Sections 96.48 (b:4 & 5) of this
bill with a less offensive and narrower term. A good alternative would
be "child who has been in the care of an [infant's]{.underline} or
[children's home"]{.underline}. In Russia these are the terms used. The
term "institutionalized" has become widely proliferated in the
literature of the soft-sciences of Psychology and Sociology. Presumably,
these terms are coined by psychologists, psychiatrists, and/or social
workers who deal with primarily only the worst case children.

Even the term "orphanage" would be a better alternative, although not
all children are literally orphans since biological parents may still be
living but not have parental rights. However, they are for practical
purposes, orphans. Although a children's home or orphanage is
technically an institution, \"Institution\" is a broad term encompassing
prisons, schools, drug and alcohol rehabilitation centers and mental
health facilities. The term has strong connotations of being involuntary
committed to a mental health facility. Although our children may have
been involuntarily placed in the children's home, it was through no
fault of their own. My concern is for the label that gets placed on them
marking them as damaged that can be self-fulfilling.

7.  **International Standards for Care of Children in Infant's and
    Children's Homes**

What can be done to improve the conditions of, and prevent the abuses of
children in children's homes and to educate the lawmakers and the
caregivers? Many do not have the resources to properly care for the
children. The caretakers often do not even have enough resources for
themselves or their own children. One issue that does not get much
press: Some families and International Adoption Medical Specialists have
made allegations of routine even daily use of sedatives or "teas" in
many children in the care of some children's homes. Other families
including us have seen indications that made them suspicious of the
possibility of such a practice.

If these conditions cannot be changed because of economic circumstances
of the countries and perhaps even education for them is not affordable,

**Please don't impede those who [need and want]{.underline} to help
these children by adopting them with eyes wide open, fully aware of the
risks, the costs, and the blessings.**

Rebecca Schwindeman, MLIS

Mother of 4 year old (adopted at age 3, Russia), 17 year old
(biological), 21 year old (biological) and Wife of Dr. J. Schwindeman,
adopted domestically