> *Thursday's Child*
>
> 227 *TUNXIS AVENUE, BLOOMFIELD, CT 06002*
>
> *(860)* 242 -5941
>
> *FAX NO. (860)* 243 -9898
>
> US Department of State CA/OCS/PRI
>
> Adoption Regulations Docket Room
>
> 2201 C Street NW
>
> Washington, DC 20520
>
> October 26, 2003
>
> Re: Docket \# State/AR-01/96
>
> To Whom It May Concern:
>
> I am the Executive Director and co-founder with my late husband, of a
> small non- profit international adoption agency with an office in
> Bloomfield, CT. We were first licensed in 1981 and have assisted
> hundreds of families who have adopted children from foreign countries
> and some from the United States also. This agency was founded out of
> the years of often negative experiences we had as child advocates and
> adoptive parents and those of many friends of ours. We conceived of
> and established a small, personalized, ethical agency that remains
> involved with the majority of our families for years and watches the
> children grow and thrive. CT has good laws and a careful and thorough
> licensing procedure. Our agency was founded for and by adoptive
> parents and is both family and child centered. My late first husband,
> Kim Abbot and I established the agency with our own limited funds when
> we were then parents to three kids, two by adoption, former foster
> parents and child advocates. I later adopted again as a widowed
> parent. For years none of our staff or consultants took a salary and I
> still take a very small, non-competitive salary.
>
> I feel it is crucial for you to know how those of us at small agencies
> feel about The Hague regulations proposed which will most likely put
> us out of business. From the time the United States signed the Hague
> Convention Treaty, we agencies provided input and were regularly
> assured that the regulations would be reasonable and workable for all
> agencies. Now that we have reviewed the proposed regulations, it is
> quite clear, to most small agencies, that we will be unable to comply
> with these regulations and that many of them make no sense to adoption
> service providers who have been in the trenches and front lines for
> years. We were promised, from the beginning, that the federal
> regulations would not supersede state requirements, but it appears
> that most state requirements are superseded in most instances. We are
> all very aware of the contention that The Hague will reduce costs of
> international adoption. We feel that is untrue and that the increased
> costs for agencies will be automatically passed to adoptive parents.
>
> Following are the primary issues in the regulations, which we feel, if
> carried out, will mean the demise of most adoption services like
> Thursday\'s Child There are
>
> *www.tcadoption.org* . *emai/: tcexecdir@ao/.com*
>
> additional issues and concerns but these stand out to me as the ones
> that will affect the largest numbers of people in a negative manner.
>
> 1\. Some Agencies have spent a long time and between \$50,000 and
> \$100,000 to go through the voluntary accreditation process with COA.
> They were promised it would give them a heard start in complying with
> federal regulations. Now we have learned that that those who went
> through this voluntary accreditation will have to re-accredit and the
> voluntary accreditation is not valid. This protracted and very
> expensive process hurt the agencies financially and took much of their
> time, which could and should have been focused on service provision.
> Our agency and most small ones do not have the staff to be able to do
> this and even if we could afford it, our program would suffer
> terribly. Some agencies who tried to jump the gun to be voluntarily
> accredited either hired an acting executive director while their
> director worked on the accreditation material, or hired a staff person
> to do that exclusively. At our agency there is nobody to do it but
> myself, and no money to hire someone else. The rest of our staff and
> consultants are not even full time workers.
>
> Many of us feel that the state licensing divisions should be required
> to add the accreditation standards to their own and should do this for
> agencies in their states. A modest fee could be charged to cover this,
> as some states (not CT) already charge to license private agencies.
> While the licensing divisions would not be pleased to have this extra
> work, the adoption community feels they should be mandated to do so.
> After all, the state agencies already receive considerable Federal
> funding for various things. It is unreasonable for a private
> accrediting body or several to profit while small and mid-sized
> agencies are driven out of business in the next couple of years.
> Requiring state agencies to do this might be an effective solution.
> From a business standpoint I know that there are a number of CT
> agencies that would probably not qualify under the proposed
> regulations.
>
> 2\. Under the current proposed regs, all Executive Directors will have
> to be credentialed and all workers providing adoption services will
> need to possess MSW degrees. I have been in the adoption field for
> over 30 years and for more than 22 years at Thursday\'s Child. Yet, I
> might not be permitted to continue directing our agency, though I am
> regularly consulted by the MSW\'s on our staff and asked for my
> expertise. The State of Connecticut has given me a permanent waiver
> due to my years of experience, but apparently this will not be good
> enough. While we have some MSW\'s, some of the workers doing
> homestudies are not MSW\'s. Many agencies around the country also have
> adoption workers with credentials in other areas, or only bachelor\'s
> degrees and we find that these workers do an excellent job. Many small
> agencies are run by non-credentialed, but very experienced adoptive
> parents who stablished their non-profit agencies. In operating this
> agency, our best workers have not necessarily been the ones with the
> credentials, but those with personal, hands-on adoption experience.
>
> 3\. The regulations require that agencies maintain a large substantial
> reserve, larger than our entire budget. There are no small or medium
> sized agencies that can afford to do this. We are all non-profit
> agencies. Our agency has managed to meet its financial
> responsibilities, since our inception in 1981,
>
> through the donation of my own services for many years and through my
>
> 2
>
> current willingness to be compensated with a very small salary. We
> absolutely cannot afford to set aside a large percentage of our
> operating costs. This requirement alone will put most of us out of
> business quickly.
>
> 4\. All primary providers will have responsibility for the actions of
> the lawyers and facilitators we work with in the foreign countries.
> This is insulting and culturally insensitive. These professionals do
> not consider themselves to be our employees and I doubt any of them in
> any country would agree to supervision by agencies here. They are our
> colleagues and any attempt to change that balance will cause them to
> terminate their programs with us. This arrogance is one more reason
> that our country has so many detractors. The lawyers and other
> professionals in adoption are, or will be regulated by their own
> governments. Agencies would not remain in business long if they did
> not use reputable foreign cooperating resources. It is apparent that
> the intent of the regulations was to improve the ability of agencies
> here to supervise their foreign counterparts, but this is beyond the
> ability of any agency here to accomplish. Not even the largest
> agencies have the means to monitor what occurs in the other countries
> on a regular basis. We are simply not there all of the time and the
> foreign practitioners do not have the resources or training to keep
> the same types of records we do, or have the health care availability
> or other services. If they did, the need for international adoptions
> might not exist. We cannot and should not have all liability assigned
> to agencies here and there is no way we can be expected to police our
> foreign colleagues.
>
> 5\. The proposed regulations would require a large amount of liability
> insurance coverage. This requirement exceeds the intent of the law.
> Additionally, it has been difficult, if not impossible for many of us
> to obtain affordable coverage, regardless of our histories, size or
> lack of claims. An exchange of information with other agencies reveals
> quotes of \$10,000 to \$50,000. Our agency has never had a complaint
> against a lawsuit or us filed. If the regulations are to require
> extensive coverage, then the Federal Government should provide an
> affordable means to obtain it.
>
> It is not reasonable that according to the regulations, all risks
> financially shall be assigned to the service providers. Agencies\'
> hands will be virtually paralyzed by this and they will be unable to
> share any risks whatsoever with adopting parents. Even without the
> other proposed costs, small agencies will not be able to handle this.
> Agencies have historically had contracts designed to minimize the risk
> of all parties, but this certainly included themselves. These
> requirements will place an enormous burden on agencies serving as
> primary providers. (Proposed Reg. 96.45 (b) (8) and (c).
>
> These regulations will encourage adoptive parents to pursue actions
> against their agencies whether or not warranted. The majority of
> agencies are non-profits with very limited resources. We are simply
> not in the position to assume risks for the actions and practices of
> other entities, here in this country or elsewhere, including the
> independent contractors in other countries. We are charitable
> organizations and that is why we were granted our non-profit status in
> the first place. With all of these restrictions, we will become even
> more focused on the minutiae of business practices and less on our
> primary missions of helping children and families. We are not denying
> that parents deserve protection, but we non-profits also deserve some
> protection from the results of our unreasonably litigious society. In
> fact,
>
> 3
>
> public policy in many states protects charitable organizations so that
> they can accomplish their stated charitable missions without undue
> fear of litigation. Adoption agencies that are *somehow* able to
> afford the burden of the accreditation may well have difficulty
> retaining their staff and boards of directors under the present
> proposed regulations.
>
> 6\. In a misinformed attempt to give an advantage to agencies not
> being able to afford accreditation, the proposed regulations state
> that any agency performing only homestudy services will be exempt, but
> not if the agency also does post-placement supervisions or performs
> any other adoption service. This is very poor professional practice.
> No agency these days can easily survive doing only homestudies and
> that was why our agency slowly expanded into international programs.
> There are too many agencies with which to compete in our tiny state.
> However, it is also professionally unethical to do homestudies without
> follow-up and support to families and children. Many state licensing
> authorities require such follow-through of their licensed agencies. We
> do not consider it morally appropriate either, to discharge our
> responsibilities and abandon our clients upon homestudy completion.
> Larger agencies have already stated intention not to use small
> agencies only capable of doing homestudies. Clients would need to
> switch to another agency for that and some would try to avoid
> post-placement follow up altogether. If small agencies are unable to
> develop written agreements with larger agencies they will also go out
> of business, even if they have been \"spared\" the costs of becoming
> accredited and complying with these regulations. If a break is going
> to be given small agencies, then they should be exempt if they provide
> only homestudy and post placement or follow up services. I still
> don\'t think we could obtain enough clients to survive, since there
> are many other agencies locally providing this.
>
> I guarantee that many small agencies will choose to fold even without
> attempting to determine if they can comply with the requirements for
> accreditation. Many are already sadly speaking of doing so. The ones
> that remain will not be the best, but the most wealthy and largest.
>
> People like me, who raised four children alone for many years and made
> numerous sacrifices for the cause of adoption and for this agency,
> will not be able to put ourselves in the position of being liable for
> actions of others, or of investing the majority of our agency\'s
> financial resources in being accredited only to find ourselves driven
> out of business before long, due to being unable to recover such costs
> by increasing our client base.
>
> Meanwhile, the large and monied agencies will grow larger and
> wealthier and prospective parents will no longer have freedom of
> choice to use services of a friendly, careful and personalized agency
> like Thursday\'s Child, because we will not exist. The accrediting
> bodies chosen (and some have lobbied long and hard) will also grow
> wealthy.
>
> The Hague was intended to protect and help children and families
> around the world. We have seen no evidence that this has been the case
> in any of the countries that have implemented it. Adoptions have
> decreased, as well as the \~ children remaining longer in overcrowded
> orphanages. We have not witnessed
>
> 4
>
> a dramatic increase in local adoptions in other countries, or in
> improved services to children and families.
>
> Here in the US, the regulations, if allowed to go forward as
> presented, will also seriously affect families and children. It is not
> only about agencies, business practices, credentials, funds,
> liability, etc. ***It is all about people.*** Many small agencies have
> dedicated employees who will lose their chosen profession though they
> have been doing an impressive job thus far, at far less compensation
> than most would have earned at other jobs. For myself, I will find
> that with over 30 years of adoption expertise under my belt, I will
> not find employment in my chosen field, to which I have devoted my
> life. When my husband died in a fire six months after our agency\'s
> initial licensure in 1981 and we were left with no home, no insurance
> and little else, I was urged to get out of the adoption field which
> was so non-lucrative. Friends advised me to seek employment that would
> benefit my family. My commitment to adoption and to Thursday\'s Child
> made me resist their advice and now, in my late fifties, with a child
> still at home, I may suddenly find myself out of work, with no
> pension, no benefits or unemployment insurance, if the proposed
> regulations go forward without radical changes. Even worse, after over
> 30 years of adoption experience, I will have no avenue to obtain
> another job in my chosen field where, according to our clients, I have
> labored with competence and compassion. Some of our part-time workers
> who do a wonderful job will also have to seek other types of
> employment.
>
> To have the Federal Government close good and reputable business
> because of regulations that we were promised would be reasonable and
> easy to implement, is beyond outrageous. **It is not too late** to
> create regulations that are reasonable and human and still do a good
> job, but allow small agencies to be able to afford to continue.
>
> Some state that The Hague here is a done deal, but laws can also be
> changed. International adoption agencies are very angry now, except
> perhaps for a few of the giant-sized ones who believe this will almost
> create a monopoly for them and will enhance their businesses. When
> adoptive parents learn how limited they will be, how their costs
> (already high) will increase and how they will be subjected to
> cookie-cutter adoption services, they will also become quite angry. At
> this time they may not be fully aware of all of the implications.
>
> I urge you to go back to the drawing board on these regulations and to
> listen to the front-line service providers. It is not research or
> study organizations that really are in tune to the pulse and heartbeat
> of our field. It is disastrous and ignorant to move ahead with a time
> line if you are creating a monster
>
> and hurting many in doing so. That was not the intention of The Hague
> at all.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Iris Arenson-Fuller, Executive Director,
>
> Thursday\'s Child, Inc.
>
> 5
>
> *Thursday's Child*
>
> 227 *TUNXIS AVENUE, BLOOMFIELD, CT 06002*
>
> *(860)* 242 -5941
>
> *FAX NO. (860)* 243 -9898
>
> US Department of State CA/OCS/PRI
>
> Adoption Regulations Docket Room
>
> 2201 C Street NW
>
> Washington, DC 20520
>
> October 31, 2003
>
> Re: docket number State/AR-01/96
>
> TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
>
> Our agency, Thursday\'s Child, Inc, sent you a packet of comments the
> other day. We are aware that many of our colleagues around the country
> are doing the same, as well as our representation from the JCICS for
> those of us who are members. We feel very strongly that our comments
> must be made part of a new draft of the regulations and that the
> current version must not be accepted as final.
>
> I am sending you a hard copy of this request.
>
> Thank you.

Sincerely,

> Iris Arenson-Fuller, Exec. Dir.
>
> Thursday\'s Child, Inc
>
> 227 Tunxis Avenue
>
> Bloomfield, CT 06002
>
> 860-242-5941
>
> *www.tcadoption.org* . *emai/: tcexecdir@ao/.com*