**TO:** U.S. Department of State

CA/OCS/PRI

Adoption Regulations Docket Room, SA-29

2201 C St. NW

Washington, DC 20520

**FROM:** Ethica, Inc.

1116 W. 7th St.

Columbia, TN 38401

\(931\) 840-4565

**RE:** Comments on State Department Regulations on Intercountry
Adoption

State/AR-01/96

***These comments from the adoption community were collected online by
Ethica, a nonprofit education, assistance and advocacy group, at
www.ethicanet.org. Except where otherwise noted, comments are from
adoptive parents.***

**§ 96.34 Compensation**

**Comments from adoptive parents:**

This consideration of compensation is extremely important. We were urged
to provide \$60 for this or that our entire visit, either in direct
money or an expensive gift. Then there was the tire. We had to buy a new
tire for the truck which brought our son---\$ 200. We were expected to
buy dinner for the agency's rep, her husband and her child each evening
we were in the town where our son was. Thank you for these provisions.

Set fees should be required from our government.

Agency should list all fees up front, including what is paid separately
to them and to attorneys or agents in the foreign country.

Still too vague and inconsistent.

I was surprised at how well thought out this section is. I especially
appreciate that a clear distinction is drawn between practices that
provide financial incentives to birth parents to place their children
for adoption and fair reimbursement to lawyers and care providers for
legitimate work in finalizing the adoption and caring for the child
during the process. It is vitally important that the U.S. not follow the
dubious line of reasoning espoused by groups such as UNICEF who
repeatedly imply that even legitimate payments for legal services or
health care are grounds for charges of \"baby selling.\"

Like the idea that facilitators are salaried employees. But still sounds
pretty vague. Who's to say that a more prolific \"provider\" just
wouldn\'t earn a higher \"salary\" than someone who does not offer as
many referrals to the agency? It seems that it would be pretty easy to
make it a pay-per-child thing. Also, curious who/what/how these
reasonable salaries would be determined.

I like the concepts behind this section, but it lacks definition.
Particularly, it fails to state who will determine and what exactly
constitutes fees, wages and salaries that are "unreasonably high in
relation to the services actually rendered." This needs to made
unquestionably clear.

I agree with this idea of compensation. I am not sure how it would
affect the agency, however reducing the "quantity" aspect and
encouraging a "quality" component would definitely serve the adoptive
family well. The distinction should be made clear to prospective parents
about compensation in "nonprofits," as exorbitant salaries can be
disguised.

96.34(a) This is great! It will reduce incentive to put quantity ahead
of quality of adoptions.

96.34(d): "Unreasonably high" needs further clarification.

Eliminate agencies. Do-it-yourself adoption is the way to go. The fees
need to go to the local orphanages. Translations should be done
overseas. Speedy adoption should be made available locally. Agencies are
the worst. They cost so much money and the way they operate is often
unethical. Eliminate the need for an agency! Make it simple. Charge a
visitation fee at each orphanage. Make adoption open. No referrals. Go
visit the orphanage, meet with the director and select a child. Present
short dossier in court, INS forms, home study, birth certificates,
marriage license, passport, drivers license, lease or deed to home. That
is all you need. Stop the overkill. Lessen the burdens. Make a child
*very happy*! Make it easy for legally orphaned children to get a home
and a family.

96.34-I would suggest that in addition to normal and customary wages for
employees, there be no bonus money awarded for work done, children
placed, etc. Do the fees for service not constitute incentive fees? This
needs to be clearly defined. Otherwise, it will end up being manipulated
into fees per child brought in, etc.

96.34 (d) and (e) are good and need to be left in. Wages/fees/salaries
should be somewhat uniform. If all are providing like services, are
nonprofit and working in the same counties, countries, etc., they should
be paying employees and issuing fees that are reasonably alike.

I agree with the proposed compensation standards, as stated.

Agencies should compensate employees or contractors at fair wages per
standard of living. Fees for legal services should be regulated
nationally.

The move to make these arrangements more transparent is great. Right
now, adoptive parents basically drop money down a black hole.

**Comments from birth parents:**

Agencies must disclose, in reasonable detail, all fees, including refund
procedures and policies.

Keep everything open to all members of the triad. We need people that
are willing to help once the child given up for adoption turns 21 years
old. The truth will set us free.

**§ 96.35 Suitability of agencies and persons to provide adoption
services consistent with the Convention**

**Comments from adoptive parents:**

Information should be made available to the public of any problems or
law breaking the agency has been involved in in the past or present. Any
agency that has had more than three complaints/lawsuits filed against it
should not be allowed to do adoptions. *Agencies must travel to the
foreign country to check on cases and persons they are working with.*

Exceptional.

What previous history? Who\'s been keeping track? Many families that
have tried to make complaints have been brushed aside by state/fed
regulators up till now. Agencies have threatened families with court
action if they attempt to file complaints. Stricter enforcement by a
*central* agency and accountability would be nice.

It is vitally important that licensed agencies are held to the highest
standards, including background checks. Previous history should
definitely be a consideration.

All very good.

I really like this entire section. If properly implemented and enforced,
it would eliminate a sizable number of bad providers currently in
business. Like most things, the devil is in the details here and it
would all seem to hinge on who becomes the accrediting body.

I agree with this section, as it will only benefit the adoptive family
and allow criteria for adoptive parents to judge the agencies' ethical
business practices in the working with children and families. I also
think it should not only include those that work directly with the
agency and families, but also those that work indirectly---facilitators,
for example.

Agencies that have had problems in one state can set up in another.
There must be more mandated regulation and a national database so that
agencies that have had serious problems or who have lost their licenses
suffer sanctions. Otherwise abuses will continue.

Many state licensing administrations are highly problematic. Complaints
received in many states are not kept on file. How will the accrediting
entities know about possible written complaints? Will former clients be
allowed to send their complaint to the accrediting

entities during the accreditation process for review? State licensing of
adoption entities is a joke in most states. Little action is ever taken
against corrupt adoption professionals. There should be a statement
preventing accrediting bodies from approving agencies/providers with any
infractions listed here. There should be no second chances where
placement of children is concerned.

Agencies need to give full disclosure on any complaints, how those
complaints were met and what changes the agency has made since a
complaint was made.

Eliminate agencies. Strive for easy do-it-yourself open adoption. Make
it quick and easy to adopt a legally abandoned child. Agencies are the
worst! I know---I was charged 10K to adopt a kid that was being adopted
by another family! Trust me, adoption agencies need to be eliminated!
*They give adoption a bad name*. Lots of bait and switch. The fees to
investigate children need to go to the orphanages and the locals. Legal
and medical clearance could be funded for an entire orphanage of kids
for 10K. Take the agents out of the deal.

This is good. There should be a central location to check real
references on an agency/facilitator. As a prospective adoptive parent,
there is nowhere to look to find out if a given agency is on the up and
up. We had to search through the Internet for hours. We checked with the
Better Business Bureau, but most agencies have a main office in one
state and different country programs in other states. Most unhappy
adoptive parents do not report the services to the BBB. Also, we have a
right to know who the in-country representative is for a given agency.
It should not be considered a secret. Too many agencies hide behind this
cloak when they have a less than ethical representative in country.

Good.

There should be specific terminology defining who can provide adoption
services. For example, \"adoption helpers,\" \"advisors,\" etc. should
either have some type of certification / licensure and malpractice
insurance or should not be allowed under law to \"assist\" with anything
related to adoptions.

I strongly agree with the provisions as described for the Suitability of
Agencies and Persons to Provide Adoption Services Consistent with the
Convention.

There should be a central agency that can supply information on an
agency\'s history of practicing in the field of adoption, like the
Better Business Bureau. While the individual states can provide this
information sometimes, complaints aren\'t always reported, so this
information needs to be provided to consumers. Agencies need to let
prospective parents know how they can access their record of practice.

How would you propose dealing with foreigners assisting in the
facilitation of adoption? Also, there should be a graded system for
domestic agencies: Certain violations should mean automatic loss of
licensing and prosecution; others might lead to fines or suspension of
licensing, or publication of the findings in a public place so that
prospective clients can find out about it. Sort of a Better Business
Bureau for agencies.

**Comments from birth parents:**

There are agencies that are out there trying to stop adult adoptees from
gaining knowledge of who they are and where they came from. You don\'t
know the loneliness of being adopted until you have walked in their
shoes. We need people to understand that *God* is the Author of
Adoption. Moses was an adult adoptee and God gave him a big job to do.
If you don\'t

know the story, read your Bible.

Many agencies do not follow through to determine if the actual adoption
is finalized, done legally. In my case, my daughter was *sold* for
\$15,000, never legally adopted, physically and emotionally abused for
years, with no accountability on the part of the adoptive parents. The
agency did not care, as they got paid. This agency should be held
accountable.

**§ 96.36 Prohibition on child buying**

Exceptional.

Setting fee limits is the only way to really prohibit child buying.

No agency or attorney should be allowed to buy a child for resale. This
includes taking custody of children while putting them out for bid to
agencies!

Child buying should be punished at all costs. Many U.S. agencies play
the \"don\'t ask/don\'t tell\" game with orphanages/facilitators in
other countries so they cannot be held responsible for these kinds of
happenings.

I feel it is important to carefully preserve the right of attorneys to
charge fair market prices for their legitimate services in processing an
adoption. It is also important that care for the child during the
pregnancy, birth and sometimes lengthy adoption process be a legitimate
expense.

This is excellent, but again, it is dependent on the resources committed
to oversight and enforcement.

No adoptive parent should ever want the equation of adoption to include
child buying, but there are costs that exist to care for the children
and birth parents prior to finalization of the pending adoption. There
should be a very clear policy that allows the parents to see exactly
what "costs" are associated in this area and allow the parents to work
with an agency whose policy they are comfortable with.

Any agency which participates in child buying, whether with knowledge or
not, should lose its license.

Prebirth and medical expenses of the birthmother should not be allowed
under any circumstance. Technically an unborn child is not an "orphan"
and therefore should not be eligible for referral until after birth and
attempts have been made to place the child in the country of birth.
Isn't that the spirit of the Hague? Allowing these expenses to be paid
opens the door for coercion and corruption. It takes power away from the
birthparent(s) and puts it into the hands of those paying the bills.

Absolutely *no child buying.* Strict controls to ensure that the costs
adoptive families are paying are not so exorbitant so they are within
reason and acceptable throughout the world. Don\'t make costs so high
that only the wealthy can afford to adopt.

What do you think a private agency is doing? Get rid of agencies and
allow open adoption of legally orphaned children. If children were
legally cleared and medically cleared there would be no shortage and
child buying would automatically go by the wayside. False shortages of
available children are created by the fact that the kids are not legally
cleared for adoption. The adoption fee should go to the orphanage to
legally clear more kids. This is a very important humanitarian issue.
These kids might as well be incarcerated if they are not legally cleared
and put up for adoption when eligible. Agencies are paying these costs
for a few lucky ones and there is a great deal of corruption by the
agencies trying to speed things along and lower costs. The culprits are
the agencies\...*the people who are in the business* are often unethical
and that will never change, and the *need* for an agency must be
eliminated\...so the money is not wasted supporting unethical business
practices and can be used to legally clear orphans\...and hopefully
medically vaccinate them for hepatitis and other diseases prevalent in
orphanages.

a\) This seems awfully vague. I would like to see tighter controls.
Possibly a central organizing authority to verify relinquishments before
a child is placed in an adoption-related orphanage. The non-uniformity
of the "reasonable payments" by countries opens a can of worms as to
what can constitute these reasonable payments. Why is medical care and
food considered reasonable in one country when a bag of rice in another
is considered a payoff?

b\) This will not work. Training employees not to move into "gray" areas
is akin to handing teenager keys to the car and telling them not to
speed. That is not to say that all representatives are unethical;
rather, it allows an unethical agency to do what they want to do.

I strongly agree with the provisions as described in the Convention for
the Prohibition on Child Buying.

Agencies shall let prospective parents know what they do to prevent this
problem.

Since we all know it's going on on a de facto basis around the world
with the exorbitantly high fees paid\...

**Comments from birth parents:**

I feel that buying a child is wrong. But I also think that keeping a
child in the System is

wrong. All children need someone to love them, and a foster parent
sometimes thinks more of the money than the child. Adoption in the
United States is one of the largest money-making businesses in the world
and if we continue to let these agencies continue, they will own the
world of adoption and even the government will not be able to have a say
in it. So no to anybody buying a child.

Yes, trafficking in children must stop. My family has been a victim of
this practice, in the U.S. We do not have the protection of U.S. courts.

**§ 96.37-38 Education and experience requirements for social service
personnel**

On both sides of the oceans, please---no matter the country.

The most educated person in the world may still not have the common
sense they should.

I support these requirements as stated in this proposal.

This is also excellent and if properly overseen and enforced, will drive
the amateurs and the liars out of the adoption business and put things
back in the hands of qualified professionals.

Even though I understand the need for a college education in social work
or related fields, I also feel that the experience that a adoptive
parent can bring to an agency in working for that agency can not be
overlooked. I feel that the masters degree is a little too high for a
supervisor. I totally agree with all the criteria being for those that
have anything to do with the writing and recommendations of the adoptive
family's home study, but to remove the ability for adoptive families to
provide their hands-on experiences in the journey of adoption is a very
sad loss for the family in the process of adopting for the first time.
What one learns in a book is so very different from being one that
experiences the joys and pains of becoming an adoptive family.

All education and experience must be corroborated by the licensing
board, as many adoption agencies are mom and pop operations set up by
those with no training and no social work skills. Other employees lie.
Proof of diplomas and accreditation must be provided before a license is
issued.

96.37(a) Narrower definition of \"appropriate qualifications\" needed.
Vagueness allows most anyone to work in adoption. All agency personnel
who are involved in placement or referral of children should be required
to have at least a bachelor\'s degree in a social science field.

Require CEU's of social workers, monitor the classes that they can take
and require certain classes.

Teaching degree or social work degree. College degree required.

96.38-This is good. It needs to be implemented. Too many agencies feel
they have completed their job when a child arrives on U.S. soil. The
training provided needs to be uniform and consistent throughout the
adoption community. Too many agencies do what they can to get a child
home and do not have further contact with the child/family.
Counseling/education needs to be extended past the time the child gets
off of an airplane. All children go through a grieving process and it is
the job of the social workers, agencies and families to address and deal
with these issues.

Good.

Only licensed clinical social workers should conduct home studies. What
is suggested is too many disciplines being involved, some of whom have
questionable or *no* credentials *or* training but will gladly jump on
board when they realize they can have a piece of the pie.

Adoptions are a billion dollars a year industry. Rehab workers and
nurses have training in their respective fields and that is where their
practice should be limited to. If too many disciplines are involved
there will be anarchy and quality will suffer.

I agree with the proposed Education and Experience requirements, as
stated.

Education for social service personnel shall include sufficient training
on cultural literacy.

Achievement should be published publicly so clients can judge for
themselves.

**Comments from birthparents:**

There are certification programs in many states for social service
workers. Make such programs mandatory nationwide. This problem is too
serious to be approached in a casual manner.

Taught how to be honest with the adoptive parents and adoptees. To
encourage open records in the USA. Open adoption is a way to help a
birthmother to cope with the feelings of low self-esteem and just
knowing that our children are safe and not being abused.

**§96.39 Information disclosure and quality control practices**

Orphanage representatives should not be allowed to ask for additional
money for any item during the visits of the parents when the parents are
most vulnerable. Fees should be set and that's that. If a parent cares
to donate to the orphanage goods or money, then it should be done. But
on the terms of the adoptive parent.

Adoptive parents should have the fees in writing and terms also in
writing before any money is exchanged. Also, there should be a payment
plan for anyone who cannot pay the entire fee up front. Our Russian
lawyer living here made us pay the entire fee up front. We did finally
adopt our child, but if we had been denied then she would have taken all
our money with no hope of us getting anything back. I think this is an
inappropriate way of taking advantage of our citizens by foreign
citizens.

I fully support subsection 96.39 b(1). However, I would like to see
language detailing how the following two scenarios are handled: (1) a
family travels with the intent of adopting two children without having
identified them before, but, due to dishonesty with the agency, adopts
only one; (2) due to dishonesty on the part of an in-country
facilitator, a family chooses to change the country from which they
intend to adopt, and then proceed to complete an adoption. In my
opinion, both scenarios should be counted. Moreover, the regulations
should make it clear how such failures are to be counted. On another
note, the regulations should also require that the agency disclose the
business relationship between the U.S. personnel and the foreign
personnel---e.g., whether the foreign staff are merely hired or whether
they sit on the agency\'s board. If the latter, then adoptive families
cannot expect the same degree of oversight as in the former case.

#3 "usual costs" is too vague.

I support these requirements as stated in this proposal.

I wish Internet photo listings would be used only for special needs/hard
to place children (and that would be defined somewhere). I fear that
photo listings are too often used to grab the hearts of prospective
parents, who are then "forced" to use an agency that they might know
nothing about in order to secure their "dream child."

This is very good but could go even further in requiring a breakdown of
the distribution of foreign fees. Section (f) is a problem as it allows
Internet photo listings. Photo listings help turn children into
merchandise and help unscrupulous service providers bait and trap their
victims. If they are not much more severely regulated than they are
here, then they should be banned altogether. Too many times, the same
child appears listed under multiple agencies. Too many times, the photo
listing of a child is used as a bait-and-switch tactic on the part of an
adoption service provider, and too many times, a vulnerable family falls
in love with a photo on the Internet and becomes blinded to the red
flags that arise about the provider who displays the photo.

The more information that is disclosed by an agency that can be verified
as accurate and true can only benefit those children waiting for
families and those families trying to make the best possible decision
when choosing an agency to work with. But there must be a method to
insure that the information given is accurate and not just made up by
the agency.

In-country fees should be much more clearly defined so parents can see
exactly where the money goes.

96.39(b)---This should be given to every person who inquires about an
agency. It should be included on the agency\'s web site and in company
literature. This is a good addition to the regs.

Agencies need to make full disclosures of fees involved for the whole
adoption from start to finish, what money the agency takes in and what
that is used for as well as fees that go to the country the child is
from.

Eliminate agencies. They should not be necessary. It is a shady business
and should not be necessary to adopt. Agencies are a necessary evil and
can never be policed, and should just be eliminated.

96.39a(3) Clients have a right to know who is working on their behalf in
country. Do not take this part out!

Good.

I agree with the proposed Information Disclosure and Quality Control
Practices, as stated.

All fees shall be broken down in concrete units as much as possible.

**Comments by birth parents:**

Full disclosure is required. The concept of transparency in all
transactions must be introduced. The transparency concept is an
accounting principle and works well in this situation.

Why should an adoptee have to pay thousands to get their records? They
have to pay taxes and they can vote. Why punish them for something that
they did not have a say in in the first place? Most adult adoptees
don\'t have the outrageous prices it takes to get their records open in
the court. They also have to pay \$35 to \$100 to get their Non-Id, and
if they want to do a search, most agencies' fees are nonrefundable if
the search turns up nothing. This is wrong.

**§96.40 Fee policies and procedures**

Exceptional.

Under the translations portion, some consideration must be given to the
fact that translations can be accomplished over the Internet at little
or no expense although when done in Russia can be astronomical in cost.
Translations should be allowed through the use of Internet translators
in the U.S. or home country of the adopters. The certification of
translations and recertification is also an expensive joke. Cultural or
not, it has to be stopped. One set of notary seals should be adequate.
This is just another moneymaker for those in Russia.

Agencies should refund all money if an adoption falls through because of
no fault on the part of the adoptive parent. Agencies now doing business
in international adoption threaten to pull the referral of the child if
there is any disagreement.

Not bad, however #6, Contributions, concerns me. In Michigan it\'s
illegal to pay "contributions" in adoption.

I support these requirements as stated in this proposal.

Adoption agencies should be required to give a detailed list of what
their fees are for. An itemized list should be given out to each
applicant. If the agency is on the up and up, they should not have a
problem explaining to their customers what the fees are going towards. I
have had too many friends ripped off by agencies with very high fees.
The people that use them oftentimes have no idea that the fees are way
too high.

I like this section. Anything that can be added that makes the money
trail more transparent, especially in the foreign country, should be.

This policy could only help demystify the wondering by adoptive families
as to where "all the monies go." It also allows families that wish for
more/less monies to be in a specific area of their adoption to help in
the decision making process of choosing an agency.

Refunds due to agency problems should be automatic.

Most of this section is great. However, program fees need to be broken
down so prospective parents know where the majority of their foreign
fees are going. Further, if additional fees over \$800 are requested at
any point, the client should have the right to terminate the contract
and receive a full refund from the agency. Many adoptive parents budget
closely for an adoption. If the actual price goes up over \$800 (when
there are other unknowns such as travel costs) this can hinder their
ability to complete an adoption.

No lump sum only disclosures. Make sure agencies are required to give a
listing of all expenses and why.

Get rid of agencies. Spend the money on an orphanage fee to pay for
legal and medical clearance of kids.

96.40-(a)(1) Disclosure of fees needs to be broken down and the agency
needs to be fully accountable for any fees over the usual and customary
fees for the given country. Again, there are wide variations between
agencies and in-country fees for the same country. These need to be
itemized. Why should one nonprofit agency charge \$16,000 for an
adoption when another charges \$10,500? This type of thing raises a red
flag with me.

Lump sums is fine as long as there is a breakdown of that lump sum.
Adoptive families need to know up front how much the adoption will cost
without any hidden surprises. Especially if going to a foreign country,
so they are not stuck due to lack of cash because they didn\'t know the
extra fees.

I agree with the proposed Fee Policies and Procedures, as stated.

The terms for refunds should be clearly stated.

I agree with all of this. The trouble is, there is no central place or
organization that I ever found when I was trying to do a domestic
adoption that tells you your rights as a parent. You are in such an
emotional, vulnerable position and it is hard to conceive that someone
would try to cheat you or lie to you about something so important. Yet,
we know now that it happens all the time and very few agencies are well
run and organized. I think most agencies are started by nice,
well-meaning people with a desire to help children, and because they
lack the administrative, organizational and business skills to run the
agency well, plus the fact that most agencies are not powerful wealth
generators---what you get out of that is a bunch of small, sort of
sloppy agencies. And at least the State of Ohio has done nothing about
it.

**Comments from birth parents:**

The "lump sum" approach is a catch-all and may allow unethical
participants, particularly agencies and attorneys, to skirt the
regulations. There should be no "TMI" (too much information)
restrictions in this area

This is wrong. We have adoptees and birthmothers that are dying and all
these agencies want is that money. If there is something wrong like
cancer or any disease that is going to take a life which a doctor has
written on paper, they need to help and not charge anything. You as a
nonadoptive person can go get your birth certificate at a charge of no
more than \$20. Why should an adoptive person have to pay more, once
they turn 21 and pay taxes?

**§96.41 Procedures for responding to complaints**

I do not believe the above noted clause will be effective. There are so
many ways in which an agency can retaliate against an adoptive family,
including withholding referrals that may be of interest to the family.
Let\'s face it, adoptive families are more or less at the mercy of the
agency with which they work for many international programs. Adoptive
families invest so much emotional energy, time, and money in the
process, that they will put up with almost anything if it will result in
their dream coming true. Regulations cannot force an agency to treat
families with respect, to resolve conflicts in a fair way, to provide
service in the face of a complaint.

In my opinion, the only way to make the adoption process fairer for
families is to provide transparency. Families must have ready access to
the information about the complaints filed

against an agency, and the accrediting entity\'s response. For example,
an agency should be required to post on a Web site and make readily
available the material they send to the accrediting entity each quarter.
Public release of this information will allow an individual who has
filed a complaint to ascertain that their complaint has been registered
with the entity. Moreover, it will provide other families with
visibility into what will otherwise be a hidden process.

Agencies should not be allowed to threaten to take the child away from
parents. They also should not be allowed to have a clause in the
contract stating that clients will pay all of

their legal fees if there is a lawsuit.

Looks good, but what's to stop the unethical agencies from just not
disclosing the complaints? All adoptive families should be allowed to
file a report (good/bad) with a central reporting agency if they wish.
Let this be a qc check of the agency\'s reporting ability.

I support these requirements as stated in this proposal.

Not so sure about this. Does it mean that parents can only complain to
the agency? And then the agency is on the honor system to present all of
their complaints/resolutions to the accrediting agency? Is there not
somewhere separate and central for parents to lodge complaints? If so,
that seems necessary to me.

This is very good as well. It might be good to add details about
benchmarking and quality standards.

Many parents who have suffered tremendously due to corrupt agencies have
no voice and are threatened by their agencies should they go public. I
agree that agencies can not take action against legitimate, documented
complaints and that they in turn can be liable for lawsuits should they
unduly harass clients, who often do not have the resources to pay legal
fees.

This is good except that clients/adoptees/birthparents should be able to
file a complaint directly with the Complaint Registry rather than with
their service provider. There have been numerous accounts of provider
abuse and threatening behavior toward clients. Even though this section
prohibits retribution, it will not stop providers from issuing verbal
threats to their dissatisfied clients. Therefore the option to bypass
the service provider should be allowed.

Ensure client confidentiality for those clients who make complaints, and
a tracking method against whatever agencies have complaints.

Get rid of agencies. Make adoption of legally cleared kids easy and open
upon arrival in the country.

Complaints should be made to the complaint center and then referred to
the agency. Too many agencies blame unhappy outcomes on emotional
parents.

Good, but adoptive parents should have the option of filing a complaint
without going to their agency first. They should tell the agency they
will be filing a complaint but the formal complaint process should not
have to start with the agency itself.

As a adoptive parent I should have a right to voice my bad experience
with the agency and any government office and not have it pushed to the
side. I have seen several families hurt during the adoption process
because the agency did not care after they received their money due to
them.

I agree with the proposed Procedures for Responding to Complaints and
Improving Service Delivery, as stated.

I agree with this section.

On the contrary, complaints should be made public.

Right now, there\'s no central way to obtain a list of any complaints
against an agency. Centralizing it would greatly help parents choose
agencies.

**Comments from birthparents:**

Retaliation of any kind must be prohibited.

What has an agency got to fight about? They hold our lives in their
hands. They need to understand how we feel and how bad some of our lives
were while in unwed mothers homes. We were drugged and told every day
that if we searched for our children we would go to jail. How dare they
even try to do something to me. We were tricked into giving our children
up by telling us that once that child turned 18 they could have their
records and would know who gave them up. This was a bald-faced lie. All
we want is the *truth*\...

**§96.42 Retention, preservation and disclosure of adoption records**

Once the adoptive parents are the legal parents they should certainly
have all the information that is available on their child. Probably this
information should come when the parents are interested in becoming the
parents of a child so they can make an appropriate decision on whether
to proceed to adopt the child or not.

I support these requirements as stated in this proposal. If anything, I
think that adoption records might be preserved even longer.

It doesn't seem to say this explicitly, but it seems necessary that
agents (agency employees) working abroad also be required to retain and
preserve complete adoption records.

This is good. Anything more that can ensure accuracy of the child\'s
records would be of great importance. Too many children are placed with
altered, forged, or falsified histories and this has to stop.

Records should be preserved wherever possible.

How long will records be retained? Where will they be retained? Who will
oversee the record retention? If a provider moves or ceases to be
involved in adoptions, what will happen to the records? Will adoptive
parents/birth parents/adoptees be notified? These are all questions that
need to be clarified.

Preservation of adoption record for 100 years.

The child\'s record and bio parent history must be disclosed.

Records should be kept for a reasonable life expectancy. They should
always be available to the child, and both adoptive parents and birth
parents.

I agree with the proposed Retention, Preservation and Disclosure of
Adoption Records, as stated.

All adoption records shall be made available to the parties involved
upon request.

We are working on an international adoption so I can only imagine we are
subject to the law of the country. I am not expecting much.

**Comments from birthparents:**

Adoption records are part of Vital Records and must be preserved in the
same manner and for the same length of time as natural birth records, be
that 100 years, 200 years. Must be the same.

All records should be open to an adult adoptee once they turn 21 years
old. They are old enough to make good decisions and most of them don\'t
want to hurt or interfere in their birth parents' lives. They just want
to know the *truth* of why they were given up. They also want medical
records so it just might save their lives or their own children's lives.

**§96.44-45 Service planning and delivery**

All children in adoptive care who are legally free for adoption should
be allowed to be adopted. There are orphanages that support the
caretakers but the kids are never adopted. Our recent experience was
that the children there had never been adopted\...and the only reason
our child was adopted was that his biobrother was already our
son\....another issue of not separating siblings when the siblings know
that there are other kids in their family\...this has caused much strife
in our home for the first child who missed his brother tremendously and
for the second child who knew he had a brother and is now able to be
with him and is missing his friends since there was never an adoption
from his orphanage and none of the kids were prepared for the
separation. It's as if the children are prisoners of the matrons.

Agencies currently subcontracting their Indian adoptions are not
disclosing the use of a very

disreputable person to families prior to them signing a contract. When
things go sour the agency states it\'s out of their control. Don\'t see
how this is being addressed.

I support these requirements as stated in this proposal.

This is good, but a little wordy and muddy. Basically, the service
provider who holds the contract with the client is the one who is
responsible, accountable and liable for the actions of its employees
and/or subcontractors here in the USA.

Yes! Accredited agencies should be liable for all agencies/providers
they supervise. If clients have a complaint against a supervised
provider, to whom do they complain first? The provider they contracted
with, the primary provider or Complaint Registry? Who must respond?

The agency needs to be held somewhat accountable to the actions of the
facilitator. If the

agency does not trust the facilitator, they should not work with
her/him. There needs to be some accountability on the agency's part.

I agree with the proposed Service Planning and Delivery, as stated.

The agencies shall supply prospective parents with a list of rights as
well as the agency\'s legal liability contract.

**Comments from birthparents:**

The agencies, be they private or state, are legally liable. They profit
financially, they must be held responsible.

I was never given any promises that my child would never come looking
for me and they can not prove that I did not want my child to search and
find me once she turned 21. I do not think that an agency has to worry,
unless they drag their feet during a search and it takes them over three
months to find the birth parent and then she is dead. Then they would
have a right to complain.

**96-46 Using supervised providers in other countries**

Many folks in Russia are waiting to take the adopters' money. Fees for
home stays are astronomical, when hotels are abundant at a much lower
cost. Use of trains in lieu of expensive rented cars/drivers which do
not get to the destination any faster. The foreign country seems to set
the standard for the way they will conduct business. Often this is not
positive for the foreign adoptive parents. This should be changed
wherein it can be.

Not going to change anything going on currently

I support these requirements as stated in this proposal.

This is definitely a great idea. There is too much under-the-table
dealing in some countries and this needs to be stopped.

A step in the right direction for sure! Would love to see that a primary
provider had to actually *meet* or interview or get references from a
foreign supervised provider. Now that money is on the line for agencies,
that will certainly help. But I still think there is nothing that would
stop an agency with contracting with a foreign service provider who can
just promise to "deliver the goods."

Again, this is good, but a bit wordy and muddy.

Basically, the service provider who holds the contract with the client
is the one who is responsible, accountable and liable for the actions of
its employees and/or subcontractors in any foreign countries.

American agencies plead ignorance to corrupt facilitators. This must
stop. Any foreign employee should be bound under the same laws as an
American employee. Names and experience must be disclosed to parents.

96.46(a)(2) "Solicitation" should be added.

96.46(a)(4) There should be no allowance for "patterns." One strike and
they should be out.

96.46(b)(3) No prebirth expenses should be allowed.

96.46(b)(4) Good---this should also be commensurate with the local
economy.

Tight controls over employees working in foreign countries with
requirements on CEUs, work ethics, background checks, bonding and
criminal histories.

96.46a(4) Does this cover a facilitator losing the right to practice in
one country, then moving to another country to set up shop? b(3) Who
decides what reasonable payment for activities related to adoption
proceedings is? c(1) Agencies need to have enough trust in the
facilitator that they assume responsibility.

Agencies should be accountable for what their employees/facilitators in
the foreign countries do.

This should be done with respect.

I agree with the proposed Using Supervised Providers in Other Countries,
as stated.

Well, we know that most of this is ignored anyway. Why else would it
cost \$22,000 in Kaz fees alone to adopt two children from Kazakhstan,
requiring a stay of multiple weeks and usurious pricing on every service
you obtain?

**Comments from birthparents:**

Yes, I support these provisions.

I believe that all agencies, whether here in the USA or overseas, should
hold to the same rules.

**§96.48 Preparation and training of adoptive parents**

Good idea. Not sure most newbie parents will truly believe that love
won't be the cure for all things. Agencies should have families
available as phone buddies or on-line support that can help the new
families when they run into crisis.

I support these requirements wholeheartedly.

I am completely in favor of professional training of adoptive parents so
they are fully prepared to handle the myriad of issues internationally
adopted children can bring. Again, it is time to rid this industry of
the amateurs and profiteers and return it to the professionals. Having
parents who have realistic expectations and who know what they are
prepared to handle can only help reduce the increasing numbers of
disrupted adoptions.

PAPs should have *mandatory* training especially dealing with cultural
identity, trauma, loss, and grief. This should be done by qualified,
licensed independent social workers with no ties to the agency, and
additional fees charged that are *not* paid to the agency but to the
social worker to prevent corruption.

This is good. However, who is going to follow up and ensure providers
are following through?

Basic classes on child development can be offered. Birth parents are not
required by law to attend classes, but making them informational and
things that can be used a choice.

No more barriers please! It is already a crime against humanity what
adoptive parents have to go through. Do bio parents have to take a
class? Do bio parents have to spend 25K to 30K? Stop milking this
transaction for all it is worth and then some. Make it easier to give
more kids a chance! Lower the costs and barriers and eliminate the need
for an agency.

The agencies should be required to prepare the adoptive parent for their
experience to include everything one must know to complete the process.
There must be education on developmental stages, developmental
disabilities, some perspective on current trends when it comes to
insurance coverage for mental illness, behavioral issues, etc. There
should be basic training regarding common communicable diseases such as
Hepatitis B & C, HIV, TB and how those diseases are transmitted and what
is considered a positive diagnosis.

There should be every effort made to determine what adoptive parents are
hoping for in a child, whether their expectations are realistic and how
they plan to handle things if their child has more issues then they even
anticipated. Families should learn about disruptions, reasons for those
and what support services are available.

If we could have children naturally we would not be required by any law
to jump through hoops for any to give birth. Look at the foster care
system and look close as to why the children are there and not with
their birth families. Most of them are abused one way or the other.

I agree with the Preparation and Training of Adoptive Parents, as
stated.

Cultural literacy is essential, and is not taught in one evening.

Should be required of all, regardless of what agency or private
opportunity, just so somebody can say they had the opportunity to find
out about it if they wanted to. On the other hand, the training is not
very useful because in reality, a lot of it is cursory, a lot of it is
haphazard, many agencies make home videos. At the end of the day, the
social workers act like they accomplished something by showing you
videos, but you need to get into the nitty gritty of real life before it
hits home and you can absorb it. For first-time parents, they need to
find another way to present the material ---both good and bad. I went
through Geauga County, Ohio's 10-week training program and all we heard
was the most awful sad stories and saddened but brave parents coming in
to tell their stories and show us their damaged kids. I raised my hand
at the end of 40 hours of this and said, "Do you have any good news?\"
Out of 18 couples that sat through 40 hours of that class there was one1
placement that took place in the following two years. That is pathetic
and a waste of valuable resources. The County was too picky about their
families and the families were scared off.

**Comments from birth parents:**

Yes, this is important. No exceptions.

All adoptive parents had better be watched very closely. We are finding
our children in broken homes and being abused, verbally and mentally.
This is not good. We did not give our children up to be raised by
someone to abuse them. If it takes more social workers to follow this
up, than so be it. Our children were not brought into this world to have
to be abused; they were a gift from God to be given to people that could
not have children, and if they have problems they need to be dealt with
or they do not get our kids.

**§96.49 Provision of medical and social information**

*Adoptive parents must receive all medical and social info on family and
child.* Agencies must have protocols whereby they ask for needed
information.

How can you regulate something that many countries just don\'t have?
Good idea on paper.

I support these requirements as stated in this proposal.

I like this section a lot. It removes time pressures put on clients and
allows them time to review medical information on the referral. It needs
to be stronger with penalties for intentional omissions and
misrepresentations about a child\'s health and background. For example,
in the tragic death of their baby son, Cyril, in their hands at a hotel
in Russia while their adoption was in process, it was never disclosed to
Daniel and Elizabeth Case that the orphanage from which the child was
coming was a home for children with severe neurological disorders and
that most of the children there, including Cyril, were the babies of
heroin addicts. Their agency, Building Blocks Adoption Services, Inc.,
should have known and disclosed this fact. Ultimately, the tragedy of
Cyril\'s death is this agency\'s responsibility.

Information about the child\'s behavior would be useful to help parents
cope with transitioning.

Under this provision, do adoptive parents have the right to request
additional information from the provider? Must the provider make a good
faith effort to obtain the information requested?

As much if not all medical information on the child as possible,
especially if the child is special needs.

Whatever is available. Medical testing prior to adoption is a must for
adoptive parents.

The prospective parents should get information on their child if the
child is hospitalized prior to the parents coming for the child. They
should be allowed to get updates and not be kept in the dark about
treatment.

Parents should receive *all* information about the child, not just
selected information, and not find out when the child comes home that
they have other medical issues beyond the family's ability to care for.

Full medicals that should be translated prior to the court date. Our
consulate should require mandatory medical examination of the child
*before* the court and should block adoptions of children with suspected
mental retardation and communicable diseases because these children,
despite the parent's signing of the affidavit of support, *will* end up
on public support once their parents pass away. We may not pay for it,
but our kids will. Some parents are not prepared to care for the child
with major disabilities and would not knowingly adopt such a child. More
help is needed to assist adoptive parents in evaluating children\'s
medical and developmental status before they commit to adoption.

In international adoption we need to know everything in regard to the
child's health. We are paying for the doctor's visit through the fees
sent to the attorney or government until they are placed in our arms
forever.

I agree with the Provision of Medical and Social Information, as stated.

Parents shall be allowed to see a photo of the child plus all
information available at the time of referral. If there are important
questions that are unanswered, the agency should make every effort to
acquire the missing information.

Every single shred of information, as if it was their own child.

**Comments from birthparents:**

Yes, medical and social information must be as complete as possible.

If they are *alive, well* and *happy.* We also want to know of any
medical problem or in case a near death accident happens. How would you
feel if your son or daughter was over in Iraq fighting for you and you
were not allowed to know if they were alive and coming home in one
piece? We all should have the same rights as an adoptive parent.

**§96.50-51 Post adoption services**

Standards made after a couple has adopted should not affect those who
adopted before the standard was set.

Nice idea, but many families are not adopting from their own state.

I support these requirements as stated in this proposal.

This is good also. Again, it restores professionalism and will help
reduce disruptions or even greater tragedies such as the death or
killing of adoptees at the hands of their parents, which has occurred
too frequently.

Agencies *must* provide mandated counseling and classes to deal with the
issues stated in section 96.48. Parents are often in shock about their
children\'s behavior and cause even more damage.

If an adoption is disrupted, what becomes of the records? Will
disruption records be added to the original adoption records for
retention? How will this be achieved?

Should be state mandated and agency specific, if the agency deals with
international adoption or domestic only.

Eliminate agencies. After they get your money, very little service is
provided! Make do-it-yourself open adoption available!

Good.

Home visits for one year. Assistance with locating services if child has
issues. Assistance with locating respite care, and finally assistance if
parents have no choice but to disrupt.

I agree with the Post Adoption Services, as stated.

**Comments from birthparents:**

Yes.

Open records to all triad members, adoptee, birth mothers, fathers,
aunts, siblings, grandparents, at the age of 21.

**§96.69-72 Filing and review of complaints**

Who are the accrediting entities to be? Federal, international or
private ? How will they be monitored? Will costs be
standardized/controlled ? How much of the cost will be passed down to
the families who now most times struggle with the fees of adoption?

Well written. Still dependent on agencies wanting to deal with issues
after the adoption is completed.

I support these requirements as stated in this proposal.

Who the accrediting entities are and the timeliness of the review of
complaints will determine if this works or not.

This should be even stronger. Agencies currently have few fears that
they will be subject to complaints.

The Complaint Registry is a great concept. A complaint should not have
to be filed with the primary provider first. This should be optional.
Who will operate the Registry? How will records be maintained?

96.70(b)(3) Every complaint should be forwarded to the accrediting
entity for review.

Take out the middlemen! Stop trying to police something that is fraught
with inherent problems and cannot be policed. Eliminate the need for an
agency. Give kids a chance. Focus on legally clearing eligible kids as
available for adoption! The system is crazy! Needs total overhaul. No
more regulation and control. Throw out the old system. The humanitarian
rights of children are being seriously violated\... hundreds and
thousands of them!

Good.

I agree with the Filing and Review of Complaints, as stated.

**Comments from birthparents:**

There must also be a documentation of such complaints. A public history
must be maintained.

Take all complaints with an open heart. Contact the complainee and
interview all interested parties. Just open your heart.

**§96.83-88 Suspension or cancellation of accreditation**

Love to see this in place and working.

I support these requirements as stated in this proposal.

Timeliness is the important key here. The complaint process and its
culmination cannot drag on for long time periods as it will negatively
impact the adoptee and his new family.

Agencies need to be inspected more often to be sure they are complying
with regulations.

If these agencies cross the line, they should all lose their licenses.

Why in the world can the provider who loses accreditation apply to be
reinstated? We are talking about the lives of children!

Eliminate need for agencies. Need to streamline easy do-it-yourself
adoption for legally available kids in countries that allow
international adoption.

There needs to be a centralized database of all accredited agencies as
well as information whether agency license is active or if it has been
suspended. All of this must be available on the Internet.

I agree with the Suspension or Cancellation of Accreditation by the
Secretary, as stated.

I think that agencies should also have their accreditation cancelled if
they interfere in an

adoption that does not involve one of their current clients. We tried to
adopt a boy from Russia, but the agency that had hosted him in the U.S.
for the summer told us that we wouldn\'t pass a home study. When we used
a Russian attorney and went independent (easily obtaining a home study
too), the agency wrote a letter to the Department of Education in the
town and the city judge saying why we should not be allowed to adopt. We
were rejected in court. We have since successfully passed two more home
studies, so it seems the agency\'s comments were not correct. It seems
that agencies that have monetary arrangements with certain orphanages
and officials would be able to block adoptions of parents not using
their own agency, unless the rule is changed.

**Comments by birthparents:**

Yes.

They need to have new legislation to open records to adult adoptees. We
are not talking about a 3 year old child here. We are talking about
someone that just might have to adopt a child and they also pay this
hard earned money to do so. They need to control the price they get for
the adoptions.

**§96.95-111 Regulations for temporary accreditation**

Excellent provision\...these smaller agencies do very good work and
truly care for the children as did our first agency\...but were not a
"mill" atmosphere, more a personalized service for which we will always
be very, very indebted for the creation of our family. Creation of many
smaller agencies where there are not even 50 adoptions each month would
be more beneficial to the parents and to their new children. Maybe the
smaller agencies could reach out to more remote areas to help us find
those orphanages which are hidden from the public eye and from which
children will be released onto the economy of the country without
training or having ever experienced a family\'s love.

*Watch the small agencies more closely.*

I support these requirements as stated in this proposal.

There should be greater requirements for agencies applying for temporary
accreditation. They should have adequate adoption experience. It would
be good to require them to have been involved in adoption for at least
five years prior to application for temporary accreditation.

Temporary accreditation for a year, not two years.

Get rid of the need for agencies. Need do-it-yourself easy open adoption
for legally available kids.

I agree with the Regulations for Temporary Accreditation for Smaller
Agencies, as stated.

**Comments from birthparents:**

No, this is just giving them what they want, and that is more money from
the Federal Government. They should be able to give a child a good home,
even if it is a child with AIDS, there are people that will make that
child feel loved and safe for whatever time they have. I don\'t care if
they are *gay* or not. Just give that child a home and get them out of
the money-making system.

**§98.2 Preservation of Convention records**

I support these requirements as stated in this proposal.

Preservation of these records is essential in protecting the rights of
the adoptee. The child should have all the rights and privileges and
responsibilities as any child raised by birthparents. This vital link
must not be disturbed.

Preservation of adoption records for 100 years.

I agree with the Preservation of Convention Records, as stated.

**Comments from birthparents:**

I believe that all adoption records should be open to all adult
adoptees.

**Other comments:**

DNA authorizations should be easier for attorneys to obtain.

This is an amazing task which for the children in orphanages' sake I
hope doesn\'t take too long to implement. There is so much going on
overseas with the adoption processes that these rules don\'t seem to
touch on. Such as the single controlling MOE representative in an oblast
southwest of Moscow who manages every adoption himself, does not
relegate to any underling in his absence, has the entire MOE scared to
act in his absence, even his higher ups, will not act unless adequately
compensated...what is to become of these human roadblocks to adoption?
What is to become of the orphanage matrons whose children in care are
hidden in remote settlements away from the eye of potential
adopters/agencies who do not want to give up their charges under any
circumstance? What about the unspoken structure established years ago
under different social/cultural conditions which have persons who still
act and react as they did under the old regimes ? What about \"Blat\"?
Why is everyone made to be scared about what should be a beautiful
experience\...that of having a family\...? Why can\'t it just be a
process which has a good outcome?

Thank you for your dedication to the children of the world\...our sons
are gifts from God who have found their future in our hands.

Agencies are making their money on giving out referrals. They then do
not care if adoption ever gets finalized because they already have their
money.

The BCIS is untrained and unprofessional and is not competent to approve
adoptive parents. Professionals have approved several families and if a
complaint is made about a BCIS employee then the family is denied. This
happened to us. This is what is unethical. We now have \$20,000 invested
in Guatemala with no approval and have not heard anything on our appeal
for over seven months. BCIS needs to stay out of this process unless
licensed social workers or attorneys are hired.

I believe that the countries charging enormous country fees should be
investigated. Countries charging a \$15,000 fee is outrageous! The fact
that an attorney in a foreign county can get away with that is
ridiculous! We have seen the China program grow by leaps and bounds and
new orphanages being built and they only charge a \$3,000 orphanage fee.
So why are other countries charging five times that? It is not right!

I made my comments with only understanding a little of the Hague Act,
but I wanted to comment to show that I support the Acts. I am an
international adoptive parent.