U.S. Dept. of State, CA/OCS/PRI

Adoptions Regulations Docket Room

SA-29

2201 C Street, NW

Washington, DC 20520

cc: Senator Norm Coleman (MN)

Senator Mark Dayton (MN)

US SBA, Advocacy

MN SBA

Solicited Comments regarding Docket Number

State/AR-01/96

by

Laury Baars, President/Director

Child Link International

6508 Stevens Avenue

Richfield, MN 55423

612-861-9048

612-869-2004 (fax)

ChildLink1@aol.com

www.child-link.com

November 8, 2003

Child Link International is a small Child Placement Agency, a non-profit
501(c)(3) charitable organization, and a corporation licensed in the
State of Minnesota. We have been in existence as a humanitarian aid
agency since September, 1996 and as an adoption agency since 1999. We
have placed a total of 72 children, as of this date, all from Russia.
Our total charge to parents, including every last cent to be spent both
at home, in Russia, and in travel costs is \$15,800 for one child and
\$17,800 for two. This figure includes ALL expenses. If all of the
Proposed Rules are placed upon our small agency, we estimate that these
figures could conceivably double.

As the Proposed Rules as published in the **Federal Register** on
September 15, 2003 for the implementation of the Hague Convention on
Intercountry Adoption and the accreditation of agencies are going to
make the largest impact upon small agencies such as Child Link
International, we have inspected the rules in detail and are making the
following comments in hope that they will be taken into serious
consideration.

**1) Impact on Prospective Parents**

We understand that the Proposed Rules are being considered in order to
"promote child safety, child and family well-being, and stability for
children in need of a permanent family placement through intercountry
adoption", and to "help ensure that adoption service providers are
taking appropriate steps to protect children and to strengthen and
support families involved in the intercountry adoption process."

This is all fine and well, but we do not agree that the Rules, as
written, necessarily do this. We feel that with the huge financial
burden that will be ultimately put upon prospective parents to finance
all that the Rules require of agencies, that fewer parents will be able
to afford an adoption, and **ultimately, fewer children will find a
permanent family**.

Our goals as a small agency have been to treat all prospective parents
with equal respect, kindness, and fairness; to do all of our work in an
ethical manner; to keep the interests of the child(ren) as our utmost
responsibility; to work one-on-one with each family in preparation and
counseling; to encourage the

camaraderie and connection of our families one with another; to
facilitate a smooth adoption process; and to keep the cost of adoption
to a minimum in order to make it possible for good (not necessarily
rich) families to adopt. In order to do this, we have contracted with a
Social Worker, as an independent contractor, rather than employing a
Social Worker full-time. The Director has worked out of her home, rather
than rent an office. We have refused to offer bribes or given expensive
gifts for any services done in Russia. We have educated our parents
through the home study and personal visits with the Director.

We feel that many of the new Rules will interfere in our ability to
provide the above; with Big Brother watching over us, and then charging
us (ultimately, the prospective parents) for the services we are already
offering.

**3) Specific Comments**

**Part 96.7(b)(2) - "Pursuant to such agreement, to remit to the
Complaint Registry a portion of the accrediting entity's fees collected
under its approved schedule of fees, to cover the costs of such
services.**"

There has been no estimated amount published for this, so it is
difficult to determine the impact on our agency. However, we consider
this mass punishment for all, to cover the improprieties of a few. We
believe that complaints and/or lawsuits should be covered only by the
agency that is in question.

**Part 96.8(a) - "An accrediting entity may charge fees for
accreditation or approval services under this part only in accordance
with a schedule of fees approved by the Secretary."**

Once again, it is very difficult at this stage to make comment, as
requested, when there is no dollar amount attached to this statement.
Are we looking at \$100s or \$1,000s for each agency? When an agency is
placing an average of 20 children, there are few parents to bear the
cost.

**(b)(2) - "Include in each fee for full Convention accreditation or
approval the cost of all activities associated with the accreditation or
approval cycle, including but not limited to, costs for completing the
accreditation or approval process, complaint review and investigation,
routine oversight and enforcement, and other data collection and
reporting activities, except that separate fees based on actual costs
incurred may be charged for the travel and maintenance of evaluators."**

Why should the adoption agencies be paying to run a government agency
designed to be a watchdog, when we already have the State, the IRS, and
the public doing so?

**(d) - "Nothing in this section shall be construed to provide a private
right of action to challenge any fee charged by an accrediting entity
pursuant to a schedule of fees approved by the Secretary."**

Taxation, without representation?

**Part 96.13(d) - "*Prospective adoptive parent(s) acting on own
behalf". ***

We believe that more and more parents will attempt to adopt
independently, as the cost through an accredited agency will become
astronomical. This opens so many more avenues for the very criminal
things that these proposed rules are addressing to close. These parents
will be totally unprotected by these Proposed Rules and "trafficking"
will become more prevalent.

**Part 96.27(d) - "The accrediting entity will assign points to each
different standard, or to each element of a standard, depending on the
relative importance of the particular standard (or element) to
compliance with the Convention and the IAA."**

Purely subjective. This in itself, could cause a wide variance in the
quality of the agencies being accredited.

**Part 96.33(b) - "The agency's or person's finances are subject to
independent annual audits".**

This is a financial hardship on small agencies. We are already
discriminated against by the fact that we are an adoption agency. Other
non-profits are only required to submit audits once their income is over
\$250,000 annually. Our income is far below that, and yet we have been
required to submit an external financial audit every other year. The
cost for that audit is \$2500 to \$3000, which is already a huge burden
for us.

**(g) "The agency or person uses an independent professional assessment
of the risks it assumes as the basis for determining the type and amount
of professional, general, directors' and officers', and other liability
insurance to carry."**

The Proposed Rule says nothing about who will or may be hired to do this
assessment, nor what grounds are being used to determine the outcome. If
an agency has had no lawsuits or complaints over a five-year period,
would they be exempt then from carrying the risk insurance?

(**h) "The agency or person maintains insurance in amounts reasonable
related to its exposure to risk, including the risks of providing
services through supervised providers, but in no case in an amount less
than \$1,000,000 per occurrence."\\**

This is ludicrous! I have contacted many insurance agencies about this
and am yet to find any agency that would even offer such coverage,
especially considering that further into the rules it requires that the
accredited agency is legally responsible for the foreign end of the
adoption process.

Furthermore, if there is one insurance agency that decides to take this
on, they would be able to set the price of this insurance at any price
they wanted, as there would be no competition.

The same thing that has happened in our country with doctors having to
quit their profession due to exorbitant malpractice insurance will soon
happen to the adoption agencies of this country. Once the general public
(led by greedy attorneys) find that there are deep pockets to dig into,
they will. There will be increased lawsuits for any little thing that
may be perceived as breach of contract or tort.

We believe that each agency should be allowed to determine their own
amount of liability insurance, and even whether or not, they wish to
carry it. We believe, once again, that if you do your job properly and
fairly, that lawsuits are unnecessary. Why pad the pockets of rich
attorneys?

We also believe that this Rule will eventually cause agencies to *never*
place a special needs child, because they will be in fear of redress.
Even though the parents may have believed that they wanted a special
needs child, what would stop them later from deciding that the child
takes more care than they wish to give, and knowing that the provision
of \$1,000,000 is available, they will then sue the agency.

**Part 96.34(d) - "The fees, wages, or salaries paid to the directors,
officers, and employees of the agency or person are not unreasonably
high in relation to the services actually rendered, taking into account
the location, number, and qualifications of staff, workload,
requirements, budget, and size of the agency or person, and available
norms for compensation within the intercountry adoption community."**

Purely subjective, again. Who determines this, and how? What happened to
free enterprise? The consumers will ultimately decide if the cost is too
high.

**Part 96.36 - "Prohibition on child buying."**

Isn't child buying already prohibited by law? Why rewrite the Statutes?

**Part 96.37(a) - "The agency or person only uses
[employees]{.underline} with appropriate qualifications and credentials
to perform, in connection with a Convention adoption, adoption-related
social service functions that require the application of clinical skills
and judgment (home studies, child background studies, counseling, parent
preparation, post-placement, and other similar services."**

This would affect us immensely, as we are too small to
[employ]{.underline} a social worker full-time. At this time, we
contract with an LISW to do our homestudies. She is working as an
Independent Contractor. We cannot afford to cover Social Security,
Workman's Compensation, and a bookkeeper to do the payroll functions
that employees require.

**Part 96.38 (a) - "Training requirements for social service
personnel."**

We agree that the agency must cover the items listed under (1) with new
personnel.

**(b)** However, the items in (2) are the reasons we hire or contract
with a licensed Social Worker in the first place. What did they learn in
school in order to get their Master's Degree? These are the things they
should already know.

**(c)** The State already requires the Social Worker to take continuing
education classes for credit each year. Our Social Worker is also
working full-time in another function. Is it fair to require an
additional 20 hours of adoption related training each year? Who pays for
this? Ultimately, the parents again.

**Part 96.39 (b)(3) - "The number of children awaiting adoption, when
available."**

This section may as well be stricken. There is never any way to keep an
accurate account of children who are legally adoptable in a foreign
country.

**Part 96.46(c)(1) - "Assumes tort, contract, and other civil liability
to the prospective adoptive parent(s) for the foreign supervised
provider's provision of the contracted adoption services and its
compliance with the standards in this subpart F; and (2) Maintains a
bond, escrow account, or liability insurance in an amount sufficient to
cover the risks of liability arising from its work with foreign
supervised providers."**

How is it even conceivable that we can be legally responsible for a
provider in a foreign country? Laws change, personnel changes in the
Adoption Center, the Consulate, the orphanages, the Ministry of
Education. Our representative in Russia needs to interact with all of
these people on a daily basis, which in turn may affect her own work.
How can we possibly be legally responsible for a whole foreign system?

**Part 96.48(a) - "The agency or person provides prospective adoptive
parent(s) with at least ten hours (independent of the home study) of
preparation and training, as described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this
section, designed to promote a successful intercountry adoption."**

This rule does not take into account that small agencies have only 3 or
4 couples at the same stage in the process of adoption at any one time.
We would have to hire another person just to conduct these 10 hours of
training. I am sure that agencies will come together to hire teachers
for these classes, however the requirements listed in **Part 96.48(c)**
are so specific to country and region that the counseling would need to
be done on a one-on-one basis. Who is going to pay for the personnel,
the development of these programs, and materials? Why can't these issues
be covered during the regular homestudy process, as they are now? Who is
going to keep all the records of the nature and extent of the training
and prepartion provided as required in **Part 96.48(h).**

We believe that the parents should be able to avail themselves of
seminars, internet information, questions they wish to have addressed
during the homestudy, interviewing other families who have adopted
through the same agency or others, without the federal government
**requiring** them to sit through classes that may or may not pertain to
their particular adoption.

This whole section could be scrapped, except for **Part 96.48(5)(e),
which reads, "The agency or person provides additional in-person,
individualized counseling and preparation, as needed, to meet the needs
of the parent(s) in light of the particular child(ren) to be adopted and
his or her special needs, and any other training or counseling needed in
light of the child background study or the home study."**

**Part 96.52(a) -"The agency or person keeps the Central Authority of
the other Convention country and the Secretary informed about the
adoption process and the measures taken to complete it, as well as about
the progress of the placement if a probationary period is required."**

On every file, along every step of the way? This is impossible. We would
spend every day submitting reports.

(**e) - "The agency or person takes all necessary and appropriate
measures to perform any tasks in a Convention adoption case that the
Secretary identifies are required to comply with the Convention, the
IAA, or any regulations implementing the IAA."**

This open-ended statement could lead to a huge federalism issue, and
therefore, should be stricken.

**3) Grandfathering**

It seems that the U.S, Secretary of State is trying to reinvent the
wheel. There are many adoption agencies that are working very well and
very ethically in the international adoption realm. Would it not be
prudent for the Secretary of State to recognize this fact, and after
looking at an Agency's track record - ie: successful adoptions,
disruptions and dissolutions, complaints, law suits, etc., to
"grandfather" that agency as an accredited agency? Why all the extra
hovering?

It is our suggestion for the Department to take a survey of all adoptive
parents from each agency. If satisfaction is high, then go ahead and
accredit the agency. What speaks louder than satisfied clients? If there
are problems within an agency, they will show up in a natural pattern in
the surveys. Why punish all agencies with layers and layers of
bureaucracy for a few bad ones?

New agencies (working in international adoptions less than three years)
could work under these accredited agencies until they establish their
own track record for three years. At that time, if there are no
complaints and no lawsuits against the new agency, they should also
receive their accreditation.

We feel that there would be an extreme amount of Federal control over
something that is already being handled adequately at the State level.
We do not agree with the assessment under the ***Executive Order 13132:
Federalism*** as written in the Proposed Rules. We believe that there
**is** a substantial direct effect "on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government." We believe
that the States have been doing an adequate job of licensing and
monitoring Adoption Agencies in their respective State and should
continue to do so. This would easily be implemented by assigning each
State's Secretary of State to be the *accrediting entity*. The cost of
this would be negligible, as they are already in the position of
licensing and overseeing the adoption agencies in their state.

The Proposed Rules give no estimate of the cost to start and maintain
new Accreditation Entities throughout the U.S. As an agency, how are we
to know the impact this expense will have on our operations? Until there
are published amounts, there is no way to know and then it may be too
late for almost all smaller agencies.

I**n Conclusion**:

It is our opinion that this huge governmental machine that is being
built from the ground up is not taking into account that for the most
part, the system isn't broken - why try to fix it? A few unscrupulous
agents or agencies should be held accountable for any crimes they may
have committed, and the rest of us should be able to run our agencies in
the way that we have been doing so - ethically, and fairly. These
tactics are only going to cause an aura of suspicion and mistrust, and
eventually litigation, on the part of prospective parents.

The cost of adoption is going to become out of reach for many parents
wishing to adopt internationally.

Many agencies will be going out of business due to the new requirements
of added costs, personnel, and reporting.

Fewer children will be placed in loving, permanent families.

We believe that the entire Proposed Rules, as written, needs to be
revamped to become less intrusive in the lives of prospective parents,
and in the agencies who have been created to successfully and lovingly
assist them in adopting the children they so want.

Sincerely,

Laury Baars

Child Link International