> Rainbow House International
>
> A Licensed Non-Profit Agency Serving Children
>
> December 15,2003
>
> U.S. Department of State
>
> CA/OCS/PRI
>
> Adoption Regulations Docket Room, SA-29
>
> 2201 C Street, NW.
>
> Washington, DC 20520
>
> Re: [Docket State/AR-01/96: Comments on Proposed Regulations to
> Implement the Hague & IAA]{.underline}
>
> To Whom It May Concern:
>
> Rainbow House International, a non-profit, international adoption and
> humanitarian aid organization, licensed for twenty years, hereby
> submits its comments to certain provisions of the Proposed Hague
> Regulations (the \"Proposed Regulations\").
>
> Rainbow House International applauds the goals embodied in the Hague
> Convention on Protection of Children and the proposed regulations
> provide some excellent guidelines for governance of inter-country
> adoptions. Further, RHI also believes that inter-country adoption
> protects children while ensuring that adoption, rather than
> institutionalization or long term foster care, is the preferred
> alternative for orphaned children worldwide. To this extent however,
> RHI is also concerned that some of the regulations as stated, could
> have a negative impact on inter-country adoption, and we offer our
> comments on several specific issues for the Department\'s
> consideration.
>
> To this effect, we respectfully request that the Department consider
> issuance of an [\"interim ruling with public comment\"]{.underline} to
> allow for a more cooperative and collaborative effort with the
> adoption community before the finalization of regulations.
>
> Rainbow House International believes it is important to streamline the
> regulatory process so as not to create additional unnecessary hardship
> and expense to the adoption service providers, which in turn, pass it
> on to the adoptive families, or serve to discourage qualified service
> providers from seeking accreditation or approval. Specifically, we
> respectfully request that certain provisions that cover risk and
> liability issues be carefully examined and, if necessary, amended to
> more accurately reflect the structure of inter-country adoption
> services and the negative impact that the regulations, as written, may
> ultimately place on the service providers, adoptive families and the
> very children that the Convention seeks to protect
>
> The Proposed Regulations provide some wonderful guidelines for
> international adoption agencies to follow to ensure that important
> policies behind the Hague Adoption Convention are
>
> CORPORATE OFFICE: 19676 Old Highway 85. Belen, New MexicoI87002-8235 .
> (505) 861-1234. FAX: (505) 864-8420 COLORADO: 167 47th Ave. Court.
> Greeley, Colorado 80634 . (303) 830-2108
>
> accomplished. However, we are extremely troubled by the impact of the
> risk and liability provisions that are proposed. Therefore, we have
> devoted the majority of our comments to those points. In addition, we
> address certain additional important issues to a lesser extent
> following our risk and liability analysis. We respectfully request
> that the U.S. Department of State consider our serious concerns in
> seeking certain changes to the proposed regulatory scheme.
>
> [The State Department Exceeds Its\' Authority.]{.underline}
>
> Rainbow House International respectfully submits that implementation
> of the proposed risk and liability framework in section 96.45(c)(1)
> and 96.46(c)(1) goes far beyond the scope of the Hague Convention
> Treaty and the Inter-country Adoption Act of 2000 (the \"IAA\") and
> that the State Department would be exceeding its authority to
> implement such a structure. Certain risk and liability provisions
> exceed far beyond permissible boundaries. Specifically, the proposed
> regulations require that service providers \"assume tort, contract,
> and other civility liability to the prospective adoptive parents for
> the \... supervised provider\'s provisions of the contracted adoption
> services and its compliance with the standards in this subpart F.\"
> [See]{.underline} 96.45(c)(1) & 96.46(c)(1). This language creates a
> strict liability scheme, as it requires that accredited service
> providers that are primary providers be held financially responsible
> for all risks within the inter-country adoption process without regard
> to their fault.
>
> Under standard principles of common law, a plaintiff must demonstrate
> that a defendant was negligent in order to hold such defendant legally
> responsible for resulting damages. Such plaintiff must prove the
> defendant\'s negligence by a preponderance or greater weight of the
> credible evidence standard and that such negligence was a proximate
> cause of the incident that caused the alleged damage. The Proposed
> Regulations alter basic principles of tort law by removing the need
> for adoptive parents to demonstrate any fault whatsoever on the part
> of their accredited service provider in order to collect a judgment.
> All that adoptive parents must do to assert a claim for damages
> incurred to collect against their accredited agency. Indeed, the
> proposed scheme would bestow upon adoptive parents a greater legal
> guarantee than for parents who conceive a child biologically.
>
> Creation of a strict liability scheme is a public policy decision
> vested solely in the legislative branch of government - Congress.
> Congress, alone has the authority and accountability to dictate public
> policy. Unlike the legislative process, rule making by administrative
> service providers does not involve the collaborative effort of elected
> officials but the views of officials appointed by other branches of
> government. Accordingly, administrative service providers do not have
> the authority to dictate public policy, but rather to expound upon
> public policy already established by Congress. [Accord Chambers v. St.
> Mary\'s School,]{.underline} 697 N.E.2d 198 (Ohio 1998). RHI
> respectfully submits that the State Department\'s proposal and
> adoption of regulations that create a strict liability standard is an
> unconstitutional usurpation of legislative authority
>
> The following statement in the Regulations goes right to the heart of
> our concerns:
>
> 2
>
> \"In deference to the historically important role the formation of
> networks and the use of small agencies and persons have played in
> providing services \...the Department has created regulations that
> allow such relationships among agencies to continue. The Department\'s
> goal is to mirror current practices and to provide regulatory
> flexibility so that the regulations do not negatively affect small
> agencies and persons and other providers.\"
>
> Notwithstanding this important recognition, the drafters propose
> implementation of a financial framework that goes beyond the scope of
> the legislation and endangers the agencies\' very existence.
> Specifically, the financial framework does the following:
>
> \(a\) Puts all liability of adoption service providers throughout the
> system to a single \"primary provider; \"
>
> \(b\) Statutorily assigns all risk between adoptive parents and their
> agencies/service providers to the agency/service providers;
>
> \(c\) Prevents the agencies\' from sharing any risk within the system
> with adoptive parents by prohibiting informed waiver provisions;
>
> \(d\) Requires maintenance of \$1,000,000 per occurrence of insurance
> coverage; and
>
> \(e\) Incongruously, imposes non-profit status on most agencies.
>
> With the exception of the requirement for non-profit status,
> imposition of any of these requirements alone would be an enormous
> hardship for most agencies. The drafters have created a plan that is
> impossible for agencies to implement.
>
> [Assignment of Risk between Adoptive Parents to Service
> Providers]{.underline}
>
> Certain liability sections of the Proposed Regulations, place an
> improper and extraordinary financial burden on the agencies that serve
> as primary providers. Specifically, the provisions expressly require
> that agency primary providers retain legal authority and \"(1) assume
> tort, contract, and other civil liability to the prospective adoptive
> parent(s) for the supervised provider\'s provision of the contracted
> services and its compliance with the standards in this subpart F. .
> .\" Proposed Reg. 96.45(b)(8) & (c) and 96.46(b)(9) & (c). These
> provisions have two important implications:
>
> \(A\) The provisions will channel all liability, in tort, contract or
> otherwise within each case to a single \"primary provider\" for the
> actions of all adoption service providers in the U.S. and abroad in
> the process (subject to certain limited exceptions); and
>
> \(B\) The provisions will assign all risk that is inherent in the
> international adoption system to the agencies versus the adoptive
> parent(s), thereby creating a statutory cause of action for the
> adoptive parents to pursue against their agencies.
>
> Rainbow House International respectfully submits that creation of the
> proposed framework exceeds the authority of the Department of State as
> it reaches far beyond the legislation it purports to implement, and
> that such a framework presents enormous dangers for the future of
> international adoption. No other business, profit or non profit, has
> had such an application imposed. This sets an unfair business
> protocol.
>
> Rainbow House International further submits that the State
> Department\'s proposal and adoption of regulations that create a
> strict liability standard is an unconstitutional usurpation of
> legislative authority.
>
> [The Risk and Liabiliy Provisions Will Seriously Threaten The Future
> of International Adoption]{.underline}
>
> The drafters\' stated goals in proposing the risk and liability
> provisions of the proposed Regulations were: (a) to \"improve
> supervision,\" by American agencies over its counterparts in the u.s.
> and abroad, Preamble, at p. 54081, and (b) to give parents \"legal
> recourse against a single entity.\" Preamble, at 54081. The drafters\'
> proposed solutions present enormous dangers for a number of reasons.
>
> Firs the proposed liability framework will not cause primary provider
> agencies to improve supervision over their U.S.-based supervised
> homestudy agencies as primary provider agencies will avoid using
> supervised provider agencies who do only home study, parent
> preparation and post- placement services altogether. The risk of using
> an unaccredited supervised provider would be too great. Most
> accredited agencies would be unwilling to accept the legal
> responsibility and liability that using supervised providers would
> entail under the proposed regulatory scheme. If these small agencies
> and social workers (who collectively place thousands of children) are
> unable to procure written agreements with accredited agencies, they
> will surely go out of business. The drafters should recognize that
> these small providers are a vital link in the international adoption
> community, and without them, many children and adoptive parents will
> be lost to one another. And, ironically, these small local service
> providers are the only ones who can still get their own professional
> liability insurance coverage without difficulty since they are not
> involved with placing children and are almost never sued.
> [See]{.underline} Section I(B)(3) below (Insurance Requirements). This
> will also create regional disparities in the country, as only
> wealthier and larger agencies will remain in business and only clients
> living in these regions will be able to adopt internationally.
>
> Second, by imposing liability on the agency, the primary provider,
> there will not be improved supervision over foreign contacts. Agencies
> have limited if any, control over the events in foreign lands that can
> cause a problem with an adoption case to arise. There are language and
> cultural barriers, many foreign agency contacts do not have the
> resources to access health care, training, record keeping, or legal
> services that are in anyway comparable to those that we have in the
> United States. American agencies cannot be present for every
> abandonment in order to seek birth parent background and medical
> information or ask about their pre-natal care, nor can they visit
> every orphanage, supervise every doctors\' visit, and file every paper
> for every child eligible for international adoption. If resources were
> available to help children in foreign lands to this extent, there
> would not be such an enormous need for international adoption to help
> the children of these nations to find homes in the first place.
> American agencies\' chances of successfully policing the events in
> foreign lands and their foreign counterparts is extraordinarily
> difficult to accomplish, and this purpose will not be accomplished
> effectively by imposition of an extraordinary level of liability on
> American primary provider agencies.
>
> The improvement of supervision over foreign contacts is more
> appropriately accomplished elsewhere in the Hague Regulations. The
> drafters proposed a reasonable and appropriate means of encouraging
> supervision by expressly requiring agencies to investigate their
> foreign contacts, and to ensure that supervised providers here and
> abroad are ethical, meet certain standards, and understand and abide
> by the principles behind the Hague Convention. (Preamble, at 54084;
> Proposed Reg. Sec. 96.45(a) & 96.46(a).) The Hague Regulations take
> the further step of requiring that American agencies execute written
> agreements with their supervised providers in the U.S. and abroad that
> impose certain predefined requirements and certifications that are
> consistent with the Convention goals.
>
> Third, the drafters have placed an enormous financial burden on the
> agencies that the agencies are in no position to assume. Most agencies
> do not have deep pockets, They are non-profit corporations with
> inherently limited resources. To ask a non profit to assume
> responsibility for the \"local service providers\" in the U.S. as well
> as for third party independent contractors in foreign lands is both
> unreasonable and unrealistic.
>
> The majority of U.S.lntemational agencies are in business to promote
> the charitable purpose of \"uniting children living in terrible
> conditions in foreign orphanages with parents who want them,\" Howard
> M. Cooper, \"Enforcement of Contractual Release and Hold Harmless
> Language in \'Wrongful Adoption\' Cases,\" Boston Bar Journal,
> May/June 2000. For this reason, the state and federal government have
> granted such agencies non-profit status so that they can fulfill their
> important mission. If anything, non-profit corporations deserve
> protection from liability in this already overly litigious society. In
> recognition of this policy, some states have enacted statutes that
> provide non- profits with immunity from liability for its own
> negligence. Fourth, the language of Sections
>
> 96.45(c) and 96.46(c), statutorily shifts all risk undertaken by
> prospective adoptive parents in pursuing foreign adoption to their
> agencies and creates a statutory cause of action for them. This strict
> liability standard will surely invite litigation from adoptive parents
> against the very agencies that are trying to help them build a family.
>
> These regulations seem to promote litigation which will position
> agencies against other agencies and agencies against client adoptive
> parents. This blame-oriented framework does not serve the children,
> the families or do anything to sustain the mutual trust the agency
> community works so hard to build. Agencies cannot control world
> events, orphanage conditions, available medical equipment, unknown
> genetic predispositions, or any of the other risks that lead to the
> disappointing result in the first place. Using liability as a threat
> to force agencies to improve these types of events will be excessive
> and ineffective. The drafters have already proposed a scheme that will
> ensure that agencies maintain equitable standards, ensure they work
> with third parties who maintain ethical standards, and be punished in
> the event they fail to comply with Hague standards. Those who advocate
> for Liability recourse further suggest that the liability provisions
> are an appropriate mechanism to compensate the parents for economic
> losses resulting from the acts of the foreign coordinators. Ever
> entity in the adoption field including BCIS currently advise adoptive
> parents of the inherent risks associated with inter-country adoption
> and ask that they be willing to assume this risk if this is the means
> by which they choose to build or enlarge family Why should the
> agencies be forced to accept fiscal responsibility for all
> participants throughout the entire system?
>
> [Contractual Waivers]{.underline}
>
> The majority of U.S. Intern county adoption agencies advise their
> clients that international adoption is inherent of risk. Agencies
> advise the adoptive parents before the initiate a foreign adoption
> that they will be working in a foreign country, with a foreign
> government, foreign language, foreign culture, foreign medical systems
> and will be subject to the unknowns of foreign law and custom and that
> there are no guarantees. It is always possible that a foreign country
> will spontaneously decide to close their adoption programs. Moreover,
> agencies tell clients of the inherent risk of developmental delays in
> orphanage children and the possibility of unknown or undiagnosed
> medical and psychological conditions of the children due to factors
> beyond their control. Federal guidelines for the home study, as
> outlined by the BCIS require that this be in the home study. After
> acknowledging the possible hurdles and roadblocks, many prospective
> adoptive parents choose to proceed despite the known obstacles. And
> agencies reasonably ask parents to forego suing the agency if any of
> the risks becomes a reality, and many agencies ask that clients review
> their contracts with a legal advisor to assure that the client fully
> understands what is being asked..
>
> The drafters have altered current practice substantially, and
> prohibited adoption agencies from protecting themselves in this most
> reasonable manner. Agencies must be able to share the risk and to
> protect themselves contractually from the threat of litigation by
> adoptive parent(s) as means of reasonable business practice. Why not
> require that clients review their contracts with a legal advisor prior
> to signing a contract to assure that the client has been fully
> informed? Educating clients is another way to have better informed
> clients. No obstetrician guarantees their patient the outcome of a
> delivery. If they were asked to assume all risks with a delivery there
> would be no obstetricians left.
>
> Howard M. Cooper, \"Enforcement of Contractual Release and Hold
> Harmless Language in Wrongful Adoption Cases,\" Boston Bar Journal
> May/June 2000, stated:
>
> \"In a litigious society such as ours, the ability of an agency to
> educate prospective parents about the risks of international adoption
> and then to ask them to accept those risk is indispensable to an
> agency\'s ability to carry out its charitable purpose\...Put simply,
> the risks are multiple and known; and absent an ability to require
> prospective adoptive parents to a voluntarily accept the known risks,
> agencies may be precluded from their critical mission of finding homes
> for children.\"
>
> [Insurance Requirements]{.underline}
>
> The Regulations further mandate coverage at a prohibitively high
> amount of insurance coverage - \$1 million per occurrence. This is
> unreasonable for several reasons. First, it is already impossible for
> many agencies to procure professional liability coverage. The level of
> \$1 million may be impossible to satisfy depending on cost and whether
> insurers will once again begin to underwrite this type of policy.
>
> Second, if the Proposed Regulations specify a minimum of \$1 million,
> this will encourage litigious clients and their attorneys to sue for
> this specific high amount. The combination of this high floor of
> insurance coverage and the proposed risk and liability provisions
> described in sections (a) and (b) above serve to encourage litigation.
> This will tie the hands of agency as they expend energy, time and
> effort to unlimited and groundless lawsuits. You should review the
> current standards in the insurance industry for adoption providers.
> The current limits as they are now, are often difficult if not
> impossible for most agencies to obtain. Our insurance broker has
> advised us specifically that he is not aware of any carrier that would
> insure for the acts of foreign independent contractors.
>
> [Risk and Liability Provisions]{.underline}
>
> Agencies can not change the fact that children are abandoned due to
> extreme poverty, or that a country does not have the resources to
> provide adequate care for its young, or that a biological mother has
> experienced substandard pre or post natal care/nutrition, or possible
> undiagnosed genetic conditions. The term \"abandonment\" alone
> dictates that often very little information may be known about a
> child\'s medical history or genetic disposition. Orphanages staff
> spend their time and resources in meeting the basic life-sustaining
> needs of the children and are not usually equipped or trained to focus
> on extensive and accurate medical evaluations and diagnosis. In many
> instances, adequate testing to determine true levels of physical,
> development and/or emotional delays is not readily available in third
> world countries, too cost-prohibitive for underfunded orphanages, or
> is viewed as an unnecessary expense to waste on the country\'s
> unwanted children. This is the reality of our work.
>
> We would further respectfully ask that the Department of State
> consider the precarious position of agencies in relation to the
> adoptive parents. As one author stated:
>
> \"Passions run high in these \[wrongful adoption\] cases. Often,
> they\... involve parents whose emotions were already rubbed raw by not
> being able to have their own children. Many then faced a legal
> obstacle course to adopt. Gradually realizing that their long-awaited
> child has physical or mental problems can be the last straw,
> emotionally. What\'s more, to prove their case \[against their
> agency\], parents must often argue that they would not have adopted
> the children if they had known the truth.\" Wall Street Journal,
> December 7, 1998, \"Are Adoption Agencies Liable for Not Telling
> All?\" cited in Howard M. Cooper, \"Enforcement of Contractual Release
> and Hold Harmless Langue in \'Wrongful Adoption\' Cases,\" [Boston Bar
> Journal,]{.underline} May/June 2000. Arming emotionally-charged
> parents with a target for their blame and despair will only fuel the
> litigation crisis further and lead to a counter- productive result.
>
> The international adoption agency community would like the Department
> of State to recognize that the vast majority of agencies are in this
> industry for compassionate humanitarian reasons. Given that over
> 160,000 have been brought to the U.S. for adoption from foreign
> countries since 1989, the tragedies are remarkably few. In fact, if
> the State Dept were to review statistics of live births in the U.S.
> and compare the outcome of healthy children verses those with a defect
> or problem I\'m sure the findings would reflect that the ratios are
> not vastly different from children placed through inter-country
> adoption.
>
> We believe that the proposed liability structure of the Hague
> Regulations will go beyond the goals of the Hague Convention. It will
> destroy the ability of Americans who seek to grow their families
> through adoption to do so because they will not be able to afford the
> cost of the few agencies that will remain in business. And, of course,
> imposition of these impossible standards will have a tragic effect on
> the very children who the agencies, and the drafters of the Hague
> legislation, seek to help. It will also allow the few remaining
> agencies to impose further restrictive factors on their clients such
> as religious restrictions, thus limiting the pool of family resources.
> Many families will not be able to adopt because they will not be able
> to be regionally served.
>
> The Hague Regulations can accomplish the purpose of the Hague
> Convention, and even some of the new purposes that apparently were
> added when drafting the Hague Regulations, by striking the following
> provisions:
>
> \(i\) Strike sections 96.45(b)(8) & (c) and 96.46(b)(9) & (c)
>
> \(ii\) Strike section 96.39(d), which ties the agencies hands from
> sharing any risk within the process with adoptive parents by
> prohibiting informed waiver
>
> \(iii\) Strike section 96.33(h) - Requiring \$1,000,000 per occurrence
> of insurance coverage. Insurance at this level should not be a
> requirement unless the Department of State can offer such a policy at
> an affordable rate.
>
> We further ask the Department to request that the insurance industry
> analyze underwriting international adoption insurance policies for
> parents to individually defray the known risks of international
> adoption. Insurers cover domestic adoption risks, as well as travel
> insurance risks. It is not a far stretch for insurance companies to
> cover the risks associated with foreign adoption and not unreasonable
> to ask that the parents pay insurance premiums if they want the added
> protection from financial loss in the event of a disappointing result.
> Indeed, the prevailing likelihood of successful adoptions may actually
> create a solid revenue opportunity for insurers and lessen the risk on
> the agencies. Ultimately, because of the spread of risk among parties
> in the process, the insurers may once again be willing and able to
> provide agencies with professional and directors and officers policies
> to agencies.
>
> Rainbow House International hereby requests that the Department of
> State extend the December 15, 2003 deadline for providing comments to
> the Proposed Regulations. While our agency and many involved with
> JCICS have been following closely the evolution of the Hague
> legislation and regulations, there are hundreds of agencies around the
> country that have only recently learned of the imminent legislative
> changes. Those agencies should be afforded more time to review the
> Proposed Regulations and determine how they will impact their agencies
> and their industry. Consideration of the input of more agencies will
> ensure the Proposed Regulations will be finalized with input from as
> many industry professionals as possible and that all relevant factors
> have been considered and evaluated.
>
> Moreover, Rainbow House International requests that the next round of
> changes to the Proposed Regulations from the State Department be
> issued as an Interim Ruling, together with publication and an
> appropriate comment period. The current draft differs substantially
> from the Acton Burnell draft that has been circulating for the last
> several months, and raises entirely new issues that warrant a more
> thorough analysis and exchange of ideas.
>
> Rainbow House International would like the Department of State to
> consider the economic impact of the Proposed Regulations. Without
> factoring in the risk and liability issues and insurance requirements
> raised in Part I above, Rainbow House International is concerned that
> the balance of the framework, while reasonable, will likely raise
> administrative costs substantially, which will, in turn be passed onto
> adoptive families. Some industry experts have estimated cost increases
> could be in the range of \$4,500 per case (\$3000 per case for
> accreditation purposes and another \$1,500 per case for additional
> work to maintain Hague standards on an ongoing basis). John Towriss,
> \"The Hague: Noble Treaty or Flawed Concept,\" [Adoption
> Today]{.underline} September 2003) (quoting Carl Jenkins, an attorney
> specializing in adoption law).
>
> These costs will increase even further if and when agencies procure
> professional liability policies and if such policies would cover the
> acts of third party supervised providers, as suggested by the risk and
> liability provisions described above. [See]{.underline} Section I (A),
> above. One agency has done a comprehensive analysis on the subject and
> summarized its findings as follows:
>
> \"While the specifics of these policies and the scope of coverage
> offered vary, our experience highlights that despite our excellent
> record, reputation and \"loss histories\" and well drafted waiver
> provisions in our documents, a lawsuit, regardless of merit, can
> jeopardize an agency\'s ability to obtain coverage. If the proposed
> Hague regulations go into effect with the liability and risk
> allocation provisions in place, we question whether any insurance
> carrier will continue to write policies for our community and, if so,
> at what cost. The following reflects how this regulation will
> financially impact agencies of all sizes and adoptive families.\"

  ------------------------------------- -------------------- ------------
  Current Yearly Cost of Obtaining New  Divided by Number of Cost per
  Insurance for One Million Dollars     Adoptive Families    Family
  Coverage -- Not including Coverage    Per Year             
  for Homestudy agency or Foreign                            
  Partner. Annual Premium;                                   

  \$210, 000                            30                   \$7000

  \$210, 000                            100                  \$2100

  \$210, 000                            300                  \$700

  \$210, 000                            600                  \$350

  \$210, 000                            900                  \$233
  ------------------------------------- -------------------- ------------

> Lillian Thogersen, World Association for Children and Parents, Email
> Memorandum Dated October 30, 2003 (copied with permission). The cost
> increase to be allocated to adoptive parents will clearly be
> substantial. Rainbow House International believes that international
> adoption will become a privilege available only to the rich and elite
> while potentially wonderful parents of lesser means are foreclosed
> from the prospect of international adoption entirely due to cost.
>
> **Masters Degree**
>
> Section 96.37(f) of the Proposed Regulations requires that home study
> personnel have a minimum of a master\'s degree. Rainbow House believes
> that this provision will greatly restrict the qualified applicant pool
> for such positions since many geographic areas, particularly in rural
> parts of the country, such as New Mexico, where master\'s level
> candidates are not readily available to hire. Adoption is not a
> practice area that is taught in many programs, and most professionals
> learn primarily on the job through experience in the industry. While a
> master\'s degree may provide some helpful tools for social workers
> performing home studies, it does not provide a guaranty of appropriate
> knowledge on intercountry adoption or adoption issues. A person with
> excellent family assessment skills can more than adequately study and
> provide services to an adoptive family.
>
> Moreover, master\'s level social workers will be more expensive for
> service providers to hire and retain, and such costs will again be
> passed on to adoptive families. Finally, this provision can not be
> reconciled with 96.37(e) of the Proposed Regulations, which states a
> homestudy supervisor can have a bachelor\'s degree, as long as they
> also have appropriate other experience. Retention of these two
> provisions would have the incongruous result of requiring social work
> personnel to have a master\'s degree while their supervisors have a
> bachelors degree. For all of these reasons, RHI believes that section
> 36.37(f) should be modified and alternating the requirements of
> 96.37(e) to allow social workers who perform home studies to have a
> bachelor\'s degree, provided they have prior experience in family and
> children\'s services, adoption or inter-country adoption and requiring
> the home study or social work supervisor to have a minimum of a
> Master\'s Degree.
>
> Rainbow House International further submits that Subpart K of the
> Proposed Regulations does not comply with the corresponding provisions
> in the IAA and does not afford agencies due process with respect to
> adverse actions issued by accrediting agencies.
>
> The standards provide each accrediting entity no guidance whatsoever
> regarding which adverse actions to impose (suspension, cancellation of
> accreditation, non-renewal, or ceasing provision of services) under
> which circumstances. While the Proposed Regulations permit an
> accredited agency to respond to notice, Section 96.76(b), the agency
> will be forced to close its doors before it ever gets a chance to
> refute the charged deficiency.
>
> Rainbow House International requests that the Department of State
> modify the language of the Proposed Regulations to incorporate the
> standards and guidelines set forth in the IAA, and to further set
> forth which violations warrant imposition of which adverse actions.
> The process should be modified not only so it is fair to the agencies,
> but so it is consistently applied by various accrediting entities
> nationwide.
>
> Finally, we respectfully request that the Department delineate
> standard and specific procedures that accrediting entities must
> follow..
>
> **Post-Placement**
>
> As our final comment, we would ask that the Department of State,
> together with Congress, impose a statutory regulation that would
> mandate that adoptive parents provide post-placement reports, in
> compliance with the requirements of the foreign country. To
> effectively accomplish the mandate of the Hague Convention, agencies
> need a means to secure their clients\' future compliance with country
> requirements long after they have adopted their children. Presently
> American agencies are left with virtually no means of forcing their
> clients\' compliance with country post-placement requirements, and
> contractual provisions have proven to be ineffective and difficult to
> enforce. Agencies are penalized by the foreign countries for
> non-compliance without having recourse. Accordingly, Rainbow House
>
> International respectfully requests that the Department of State,
> together with the legislature, take this issue into account when
> finalizing the regulatory framework that implements the Hague
> Convention.
>
> Rainbow House International appreciates the State Department\'s
> consideration of the issues raised herein, and looks forward to
> participating in a productive dialogue regarding our concerns.
>
> Respectfully submitted,
>
> Rainbow House International
>
> Donna Clauss
>
> Executive Director