> **INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION CONGRESS**
>
> MAIN 678 393 7200
>
> FAX 678 393 7222
>
> www.iacongress.org
>
> October 31, 2003
>
> Response to State/AR-01/96 and State/AR-01/98
>
> U.S. Department of State, CA/OCS/PRI
>
> Adoption Regulations Docket Room
>
> SA-29
>
> 2201 C Street, NW
>
> Washington, DC 20520
>
> Dear Sirs:
>
> I am writing to express deep concern for the impact of these
> regulations. If implemented in the current format, the negative impact
> will be tremendous to the adoption industry with the greatest cost
> being to the child. I encourage you as you analyze and hopefully
> rewrite these regulations that you keep a focus on the best interest
> of the child. If it were your own child in the system, how would you
> want the system to benefit them?
>
> The following sections need to be addressed:
>
> [Section 96.33]{.underline}
>
> \(b\) I received a quote from our auditor after he reviewed the
> language in these documents. Moore, Stephens, and Tiller located in
> Atlanta stated that it would cost from \$8,000-\$10,000 for an agency
> audit assuming that the accounting is already in good shape.
>
> \(e\) First of all, operating expenses is not defined which will
> greatly differ from agencies working in multiple countries and running
> other entities such as orphanages, etc. Regardless of the ultimate
> definition, three months of operating expenses is practically
> impossible for most agencies to set aside without closing their doors.
>
> If the concern is coming from parents that have given large upfront
> funds to agencies to then experience the agency going out of business,
> you should require that all agencies receive funds for services as
> those services are rendered. This is the common practice of most
> responsible agencies.
>
> \(h\) The insurance of \"\$1 ,000,000 per occurrence\" is totally
> unreasonable and highly unusual. An umbrella insurance policy is
> expected but a \"per occurrence\" policy encourages lawsuits. An
> umbrella policy should be maintained per agency based on the amount of
> risk involved. Is the intent to protect the very few at the expense of
> the children and other adoptive parents?
>
> \(i\) Bonding should follow normal industry guidelines to minimize
> fraud. Individuals directly involved with financial transactions or
> check signing should be the only individuals required to be bonded.
>
> [Section 96.35]{.underline}
>
> b:
>
> \(4\) The ten year period should only be a 3-5 year period and this
> should not be just mandatory for agencies but this should also apply
> to the accrediting agency. Agencies have a right to know if there have
> been complaints against the accrediting agency.
>
> \(5\) The complaints that should be open for review should be defined
> as severe or of a defined level of concern requiring review. Each
> level of complaint should be assigned an action.
>
> [Section 96.39]{.underline}
>
> \(d\) It would be more helpful for the regulations to state what
> duties an agency can\'t waive.
>
> [Section 96.49]{.underline}
>
> \(c\) The agency should be granted the ability to utilize their
> expertise in withdrawing referrals in less than a week if necessary.
> Remember, each time a referral is placed for a set period of time, a
> child is held hostage for that length of time. A child being placed on
> hold multiple times may ultimately miss the opportunity to be placed
> at all. With the increasing use of technology, it is reasonable to
> expect that this process should naturally become shorter not longer.
> 48-72 hours would be in the child\'s best interest.
>
> [Section 96.54]{.underline}
>
> \(a\) (2) In regards to the use of an exchange or registry for at
> least 30 days, registries do not serve the best interest of the child.
> Since the United States is primarily a receiving country, the
> instances of sending children out to be adopted are usually related to
> special needs children, a relative, or a hard to place child. These
> children need placement quickly and there is not a demand for them
> within United States generally. Don\'t create bad policy and hold them
> hostage for even a day longer than necessary. Time is their greatest
> enemy and they don\'t care where their prospective parents live as
> long as they are safe.
>
> [Section 96.83]{.underline}
>
> \(b\) (3) While this list may have not been intended to prioritize, it
> would read much better if \"protecting the best interest of the
> child\" was number 1 on the list.
>
> Adoptive parents can make decisions for themselves and they have
> recourse when dissatisfied. U.S. foreign policy has an entire
> department dedicated to those issues but the children can\'t speak or
> defend themselves so we should make a point to keep them at the top of
> the list.
>
> [Section 96.88]{.underline}
>
> \(a\) \"No administrative review\"??? The thought of a few entities or
> individuals being able to essentially shut down an agency with no
> recourse is frightening. This MUST be addressed and a full review
> board put in place.
>
> I submit these concerns with the belief that they will be addressed
> and I make a formal request that the public comment be extended for an
> additional 30 days beyond November 15, 2003, to give adequate time for
> all concerned to educate themselves on these issues and respond. While
> this information is posted on your website, it is difficult to find
> unless you know exactly where to look.
>
> Thank you in advance for your attention to these issues.
>
> Lynda Lee Smith
>
> Executive Director
>
> 3440 Preston Ridge Rd. Suite 400 Alpharetta, GA 30005 USA