AdopSource Letter to President Obama

PEAR supports AdopSource's efforts to stop adoptees from being deported to their countries of origin. See their recent letter to President Obama here:

http://adopsource.org/Shepherd_Community_Letter_%20final.pdf

---

Ethics, Transparency, Support
~ What All Adoptions Deserve.
http://www.pear-now.org/

Article: Lack of accountability leaves Kairi in limbo

Reprinted with permission of the Author, Michelle Harrison: adoptive mother, friend of PEAR, and Director of Shishur Sevay.

INSIDE STORY: Lack of accountability leaves Kairi in limbo

ARTICLE | MAY 30, 2012 - 8:31PM | BY DR. MICHELLE HARRISON

Kolkata - Kairi Abha Shepherd was adopted from India at three months of age and has no country to call home. She was abandoned at birth in a Kolkata nursing home and taken in by a Kolkata orphanage that has since closed. At three months of age she was sent to the United States for adoption by Erlene Shepherd, a widow with six other adopted children. Erlene died of metastatic breast cancer when Kairi was eight years old, but never filed the papers to make Kairi a US citizen.
Now under threat of deportation, Kairi, who suffers from rapidly progressing multiple sclerosis, is an orphan without a country. She is from India, but was not raised as an Indian. She was raised as an American, but is not American. Deportation is a sanitized word. The proper term is exile, the banishment of a person from his home, his country. Given Kairi’s progressive illness, it might be death in exile.

I am an American doctor settled in Kolkata since 2006, where I founded Shishur Sevay, a home for orphan girls, some with disabilities, who were rejected for adoption. I have a younger daughter adopted in 1984 from IMH (International Mission of Hope), the same orphanage as Kairi. I also have an older daughter, to whom I gave birth. Both are American citizens, one by birth, the other by naturalization. When my older daughter was born she was mine and the only papers I filled out were for her Gibi's passport had the name Shepherd, because Erlene was to have adopted her birth certificate.

For my Indian daughter the process was longer and more complicated than pregnancy. I carried a different responsibility. I had been entrusted with another mother’s child, to love and raise her as if she were of my body. She had already lost a mother and a family. I felt a special responsibility to be the forever family she had been promised. Everyone in the long chain of people, institutions, and governments had a special responsibility for this child, because at that moment in time, they were the only ones in a position to secure her future safety.

Kairi didn’t hop on a plane at three months of age and say, “Mom, I’m coming home. Meet me at the airport.” Her “line of possession” was from a nursing home in Kolkata, to International Mission of Hope, to an escort, to Erlene Shepherd, her forever mother. An agency from the US side, AIAA (Americans for International Aid and Adoption), had to do a home study and approve Erlene to adopt another child.

Those papers had to be approved by the Indian Embassy in Washington and the US Immigration Service, all before Erlene could be assigned as Kairi’s mother. Back in India, IMH had to show how they received the child, and then petition the Alipore Court to give guardianship to Erlene Shepherd.
The guardianship papers defined the responsibilities of Erlene Shepherd: “Your petitioner submits that she is a fit and proper person to be appointed guardian of the person of the said minor during her minority. Your petitioner further submits that it will be for the welfare of and manifestly advantageous to the said minor as regards her up-bringing, education and establishment in life, if the petitioner is appointed guardian of the said minor and the minor is permitted to be taken to and live with your petitioner in USA.” The guardianship by the government of India did not require adoption or citizenship.

A different government office issued an Indian passport so Kairi could travel, with Erlene’s name as her US contact. The American Consulate had to issue a visa for Kairi to enter the US. Once Kairi was in the US, she would have received permanent resident status (a green card), which she then would have had to relinquish when she received her naturalization papers.

What went wrong – falling through the cracks
International adoption occurs in the context of a government agreement between the sending and receiving countries. At the time of Kairi’s adoption, neither government required that the child become a citizen. In fact they did not even require that the child be legally adopted!

All the people and government officials involved in the process of obtaining the child, caring for her, sending her to the US, and approving the US family were paid for what they did, by salaries or fees. Once Kairi was in the US, no one had a financial interest in helping her to get her papers. There may have been concern, but it was not imperative.

The agency that approved Erlene did so even though she had not obtained citizenship for her other international adoptees. Erlene was also approved to adopt Gibi after Kairi’s adoption. They had a single meeting, with Kairi present, and then the adoption didn’t happen; but Gibi had gone to Denver with Erlene’s name on her passport, just as Kairi had. Today in Kolkata, Gibi is tearful, and says, “Kairi was supposed to be my little sister. Maybe if I had been there to take care of her, her life would have been better.”

Erlene, a single mother with seven children, was struggling financially and then became ill with cancer. The child services agency in Utah which looks after orphaned children did not notice that the children lacked citizenship. The older siblings attempted to apply for Kairi’s papers when she was 16, but the US authorities did not let them, as they were not her parents.

By the time Kairi was an adult, her life had truly fallen apart. She was on drugs and was convicted of forgery for the purpose of getting drugs, but as a non-citizen, she was suddenly an “illegal alien headed for deportation.” She has been fighting this since 2007. The United States Child Citizenship Act of 2000 created a system of automatic citizenship for adopted children, but it was not retroactive to the time Kairi was born. She missed the deadline by months.

Hillary Clinton said, “It takes a village to raise a child.” First it takes a mother, and Kairi had lost two mothers by the time she was eight. Her mother didn’t obtain the citizenship papers, but the village also failed to notice. The same government that welcomed her at three months wants to send her back at age 30, because she committed a crime. Did any adoptive parent ever think that their children’s remaining in the US was anything other than unconditional, that if they broke the law, back they went? When we adopted, we were the ones on trial as to our worthiness of raising our children. For Kairi, who lost two mothers, the village absconded.

Kairi’s multiple sclerosis – the effects of exile
Kairi’s first symptoms of multiple sclerosis appeared when she was 18, and she was diagnosed at age 22. It has progressed rapidly. She has clear lesions of her brain, which are worse on each subsequent MRI. Without powerful and expensive medications, she will not be able to survive. With each crisis of her MS, she is hospitalized for infusions. Even worse, she cannot tolerate the heat. If Kairi is exiled, she will arrive in India without funds and without a destination. She could literally collapse as
soon as she leaves the airport and end up in a hospital with no money and no way of communicating.
The US does not deport in a kindly way. A person is put on a plane with no possessions except travel documents and they are not even allowed to make a phone call. All the rights of Americans that are taken for granted are only for citizens. Kairi has no rights, not even to a phone call to say she is leaving. She was escorted to the US with fanfare, with people sending her off, with people waiting for her arrival. Yet there are no goodbyes, just a disappearance.

When I adopted from this orphanage, I sent ahead an outfit for my daughter to wear for her journey home. We all did that. Kairi went to the US in that special outfit her mother sent her. She will be returning in whatever she happens to be wearing at the time, with no one to meet her, to a country where she looks like she belongs, where people will expect her to respond as an Indian raised in India, but she will be alone, more alone than when her mother left her at the nursing home in Kolkata. Kairi left for America as a healthy infant. She will be returning as a very sick adult with an incurable disease and without any means of survival.

Where is the village now as she faces death in exile?
The US must face its responsibility to the orphaned children it accepted, which at the time was understood to be unconditionally. As an adoptive parent, I didn’t have a return policy. The Child Citizenship Act of 2000 was a good attempt to fix the problem, but it didn’t go back far enough. Kairi isn’t the only adoptee facing deportation.

Another Indian adoptee, Jennifer Hynes, was sent back to India, leaving two children and a husband in the US. She is begging to be able to return to the US to be with her children.
The law has to be fixed. The process of exiling these sons and daughters of Americans must be stopped. They may be “adoptees,” but they came to the US to be our sons and daughters, as if of our bodies. That is what we owe them.


http://www.indiaamericatoday.com/article/inside-story-lack-accountability-leaves-kairi-limbo



For additional articles and information about Kairi Shepherd, please visit Against Child Trafficking: http://www.againstchildtrafficking.org/category/pap/kairi-shepherd/

---

Ethics, Transparency, Support
~ What All Adoptions Deserve.
http://www.pear-now.org/

PEAR Ethics Alert - China Special Needs Programs

PEAR Ethics Alert - China Special Needs Programs


PEAR has been alerted to some very concerning issues surrounding China’s special needs adoptions. We believe that adoption service providers (ASPs) are stepping up the recruitment and engaging in unrealistic practices due to their financial pressures as well as pressure from CCCWA to place SN children via a rumored reward program: 1 additional non SN referral for every 5 SN placements. We also believe that the long wait for healthy young children has encouraged Prospective Adoptive Parents (PAPs) to underestimate the potential issues surrounding the parenting of special needs children, especially older children, and to overlook unethical practices in exchange for quicker placement of children. We are also deeply concerned with the magnitude of influence of unregulated adoption advocates in the adoption process. In addition to the above, we are dismayed at the lack of candor, transparency, and communication being provided by both Central Authorities involved in governing adoptions from China to the United States.

At this time, we believe that the special needs placement programs involving Chinese children are riddled with unethical, nontransparent practices that do not adequately safeguard the children involved. The result is commodification of children, dilution of the integrity of adoption, and the placement of unwitting children and adults into crises situations.

Altering Children’s History and Information

There has been much talk lately about various agencies being willing to work with orphanage directors and the China Adoption Authority to change information in a child’s file in order to classify the child as special needs, or to change a child’s birthday in order to allow an adoption of a child who has aged out under either China or US law. We are very concerned that some agencies have the power to exert pressure on orphanages and the Chinese authorities to do this. Changing a child’s age is fraudulent activity not only under the adoption laws of China and immigration laws of the US, but also against the child being adopted.

PAPs hoping to have a child’s information changed (this has happened where a family has previously met the child as either missionaries or visitors to an orphanage) have been referred to specific agencies due to their “great favor” with China authorities and willingness to help families with this type of case. PEAR has alerted the COA and US DOS Office of Children’s issues concerning the specific agencies alleged to be engaging in this practice.

PEAR opposes any practice that alters a child’s history or identity. Children from China are already denied so much of their history due to the practice of abandonment. US agencies and US prospective parents should not be taking measures to further alter the identity and history of these children.

Marketing of Children

PEAR is concerned with manner in which special needs children under the China program are being “marketed” to prospective parents. While we understand the desire of agencies and adoption advocates to find homes for all children who may benefit from placement, it is our opinion that much of this “marketing” downplays the significant issues that may face families adopting special needs children. We also believe that the current practices of unregulated adoption advocates and the widespread sharing of information on available children violates both the laws of China and the US as well as the basic privacy rights of minor children.

Downplaying special needs and lack of preparedness of adopting families

While we fully support adoption of special needs children, we also believe that families need to be realistically prepared to parent these children. The referral information must be complete and truthful. Some Parents have not been advised of the severity of the child's needs resulting in disruptions and dissolutions. Placing a child in a home unprepared to properly care for that child is never in the child’s best interest. We also believe that in many cases, adoption agencies and unregulated adoption advocacy groups mislead PAPs with verbal reassurances, downplaying of the severity and/or potential complications of the special needs, and communal pressure. Although PAPs go through Hague mandatory training concerning special needs, we are aware that many PAPs are mislead with verbal reassurances that training outlines “worst case scenarios” and that post-adoption support and services are widely available, affordable, and easily accessible. PEAR is aware of several cases where older child adoptions have failed once in an American adoptive home due to the vastly different expectations and ideas about what the placement means to both the parent(s) and the child.

Violations of Privacy

PEAR believes that adoptions should comply with the legal processes of all countries involved, and that the children should be afforded privacy during the matching process. We are aware that some US agencies have password-protected sites for families to check on information about China special needs, but they also have email lists where this information is widely published. Furthermore, there are online advocacy groups and blogs where the information is passed around and shared even further, circumventing the China rules about publishing this type of information. PEAR believes that many agencies are acting in violation of the Hague Regulations section 96.39(f)

We believe that children have a right to privacy concerning identifying information, especially medical records. Sharing this information widely and openly violates this right to medical privacy, especially where information is accompanied with photographs and other personally identifying information. We call on all ASPs, adoption advocates, and PAPs to respect children’s privacy in their policies and actions.

Coercion of Older Children

PEAR strongly opposes any kind of coercion or pressure placed on vulnerable children. We fully support counseling children on adoption and securing informed consent, but we have grave concerns over the fine line between counseling and coercion. We believe that it is vitally important that adoption counseling is not provided by individuals or organizations who profit by the placement of children. From information we have received, it appears older children who resist adoptions to foreigners are being coerced by orphanage workers and agency representatives in China. In one case, a PAP was allowed to speak to a child by telephone via an interpreter in China to convince them of their desire to adopt despite the child’s reluctance. In some cases, the PAPs are not aware that the children do not wish to be adopted into a family. In many of these cases, the adoptions are failing while the PAPs are still in China or once the family returns to the US. These placement situations are unacceptable and not in the best interest of the children. They also violate Article 4 (d)(1), (2), and (3) of the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (Hague Convention)

We have heard anecdotal evidence of orphanage workers in China receiving bribes for every older child placed through adoption programs. This practice turns children into a commodity and discourages acting in the child’s best interests, it also violates Article 4 (c)(3) of the Hague Convention.

Case stealing and overzealous competition

Economic conditions being what they are for adoption agencies have lead to unfair and unethical practices to boost placements. We were recently alerted to a situation that demonstrates a growing trend of “case stealing” among agencies. Apparently, agencies are counseling clients to join list-serves such as Waiting Child Advocates on Yahoo, who list individual agency’s special needs children. The clients of agency A will join the list, find a child on Agency B’s list and request further info from agency B, then take this info back to Agency A who will submit an Letter of Intent (LOI). PEAR has alerted the COA and DOS to specific examples of this practice and we hope that it is being thoroughly investigated.

Lack of Transparency and Honesty by Central Authorities

On February 26, 2012, we became aware that Wasatch International Adoptions had been suspended from submitting new dossiers by the China Adoption Authority, CCCWA. A notice had been published on Wasatch’s Special Need Blog as well on their website:

http://www.wiaa.org/chinanews.asp
http://wasatchadoptions.blogspot.com/2012/02/thank-you-for-your-e-mail.html

PEAR requested comment and clarification from Wasatch and CCCWA, but have received no replies. We also wrote to the US DOS Office of Children’s Issues, the Central Authority under the Hague, for clarification as to why they had not published an Adoption Notice concerning this as they have done so for agencies suspended from submitting dossiers in other countries (see most recently: Notice: Barring of Two U.S. Adoption Agencies by IHNFA http://adoption.state.gov/country_information/country_specific_alerts_notices.php?alert_notice_type=notices&alert_notice_file=honduras_1).

Neither CCCWA nor The US Department of State, Office of Children’s Issues have responded to our requests or offered any public information, not even a simple confirmation concerning this suspension. The failure of Central Authorities to provide complete, transparent information concerning accredited adoption service providers has lead to a flurry of rumors, mistrust in the Hague Adoption systems, and an inability for prospective adoptive families to make informed choices of providers and country programs.

Summary

The adoption landscape of China has changed dramatically from the days when baby girls were routinely abandoned. There are now waiting lists of hundreds of Chinese to adopt both boys and girls. Unethical competition in a shrinking industry with lack of adequate government oversight is creating an especially chaotic and hazardous process for PAPs and Chinese children. PEAR hopes authorities will act to curb the current abuses and create proactive policies to prevent future abuses.

---

Ethics, Transparency, Support
~ What All Adoptions Deserve.
http://www.pear-now.org/

Call to Action: Citizenship for all persons adopted abroad

One of the requirements of the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 (CCA 2000) was that the adoptee be under the age of 18 its effective date, February 27, 2001. Transnational adoptees 18 and older were not granted citizenship under its provisions.

Korean Focus has created a petition to Congress to amend the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 to include all persons adopted prior to 2001. Please consider reading the petition and if you wish to help intercountry adoptees obtain automatic citizenship, consider signing it. This would have a profound effect on thousands of children and adults adopted abroad prior to 2001.

http://www.change.org/petitions/citizenship-for-all-us-intercountry-adoptees

---

Ethics, Transparency, Support
~ What All Adoptions Deserve.
http://www.pear-now.org/

National Adoption Month: Raising Awareness & Rights

Today is the 1st of November, the first day of National Adoption Month, an event centered around raising awareness about adoption. When adoptive families, and legislators, and social workers, and agencies talk of adoption they talk of putting the child's best interests first, of adoption being centered around the rights and needs of children.

If we truly believe this, then we, as adoptive parents, need to put our child's rights first. Are we aware that in 44 US States, people who were adopted have no right to their original birth certificates? No right to their personal history? Are we doing anything about this injustice? Stand up for your children. Take a few minutes to visit the Adoptee Rights Coalition , write a letter to your state legislators, donate a few bucks to the cause. Put the best interests of the adoptee first.

---

Ethics, Transparency, Support
~ What All Adoptions Deserve.
http://www.pear-now.org/

Video in Support of Adoptee Access

Adoptee access to records is only available in a few states. Please support transparency in adoption by supporting this project.



Amy Burt, an adoptee, will be making a video that features adoptive parents in support of adoptee access to their records. The video will not be state-specific. She is looking for 100 adoptive parents to participate. She will be creating a separate video that features birthparents supporting adoptee access to their records. The message on both videos will be the same.

She intends to get this out before Thanksgiving. She would like a picture of you as well to put on her video. All photos on the video will be marked confidential.

If you or anyone you know is interested, please contact Amy at amyburt40@yahoo.com. Please write in the title of your email : Adoptive Parent for adoptee access support or Birthparent for adoptee access support.









Ethics, Transparency, Support
~ What All Adoptions Deserve.
http://www.pear-now.org/

Legislative Proposals

The following legislative proposals were introduced to Congress at the end of June. The descriptions of the bills below are provided by GovTracks. Please read the legislation on your own for a true reflection of the legislation and its impact on international adoption. The legislation can be viewed and tracked a http://www.govtrack.us/.

Rep. Diane Watson [D-CA33] introduced H.R. 3070: To encourage the development and implementation of a comprehensive, global strategy for the preservation and reunification of families and the provision of permanent parental care for orphans, and for other purposes. June 26, 2009 (aka, FOA or FFO)

Sen. Amy Klobuchar [D-MN] introduced S. 1376: A bill to restore immunization and sibling age exemptions for children adopted by United States citizens under the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption to allow their admission to the United States. June 25, 2009

Sen. Mary Landrieu [D-LA] introduced S. 1359. A bill to provide United States citizenship for children adopted from outside the United States, and for other purposes. June 25, 2009 (aka, FACE Act)

PEAR’s Positions on Pending Legislation:

A. PEAR supports Senate Bill 1376, the bill to restore immunization and sibling age exemptions for children adopted by United States citizens under the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption. This act allows waivers of the immigration immunization requirements for children adopted from Hague partner countries. It also allows children up to the age of 18 to be adopted and admitted into the US if they are siblings of previously adopted children. This bill addresses oversights in the drafting of the Hague Regulations and brings those regulations into parity with existing international adoption law and policy on immunization waivers and sibling adoptions.

B. PEAR opposes Senate Bill 1359, otherwise known as the FACE Act, as written. While we find that are positive aspects to the bill and its intended purposes, we have also have ethical concerns about the bill. PEAR feels there are unaddressed issues leaving the impact on international adoption in question. We are actively engaging in discussions with the Acts’ drafters and other adoption reform groups to clarify both perceived weaknesses and the vagueness of how the new process would be implemented. We also want to ensure that all children brought into the United States for the purpose of adoption are treated equally, fairly and respectfully.

At this point, PEAR believes that the current draft of this bill provides inadequate safeguards for the protection of the adoption triad:

1. Power of the “competent authority” in the sending country vs. power of the US government to protect children and prospective adoptive parents:

The bill appears to weaken the authority of the US government to ensure that children have not entered the adoption process due to illegal and or unethical acts by third parties by giving the “competent authority” of the sending country the final determination over some issues surrounding the legitimacy of the child’s ability to be adopted. We find the following provisions to be of particular concern (highlighting is PEAR’s):

SEC. 2. CITIZENSHIP FOR CHILDREN ADOPTED FROM OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (b) of section 320 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1431) is amended to read as follows:

(b) CITIZENSHIP FOR CHILDREN ADOPTED FROM OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.—

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—A child born outside the United States automatically becomes a citizen of the United States if the Secretary of State is satisfied that all of the following conditions are met:

“(D) Prior to the adoption, the child was an unmarried individual younger than 18 years of age—

‘‘(i)(I) whose biological parents (or parent, in the case of an individual who has one sole or surviving parent) or other person or institution that retains legal custody of the individual—

‘‘(bb) are unable to provide proper care for the individual, as determined by the competent authority of the individual’s residence; or

‘‘(II) who, as determined by the competent authority of the individual’s residence—

‘‘(aa) has been abandoned or deserted by the individual’s biological parents or legal guardian; or

‘‘(bb) has been orphaned due to the death or disappearance of the individual’s biological parents or legal guardian;

AND

SEC. 4. APPEAL OF NOTICE OF INTENT TO DENY AN ADOPTION.

(c) CONDITIONS FOR ADOPTION.—The conditions described in this subsection are met if—

(B) are unable to provide proper care for the individual, as determined by the competent authority in the country of the individual’s residence; or

(2) the covered individual, as determined by the competent authority in the country of the individual’s residence—

(A) has been abandoned or deserted by the individual’s biological parents or legal guardian; or

(B) has been orphaned due to the death or disappearance of the individual’s biological parents or legal guardian.

In order to understand PEAR’s concerns with the language and impact of the FACE Act, the proposed law needs to be compared with the current law. At present, those provisions read as follows:

Sec. 320. [8 U.S.C. 1431]

(a) A child born outside of the United States automatically becomes a citizen of the United States when all of the following conditions have been fulfilled:

(1) At least one parent of the child is a citizen of the United States, whether by birth or naturalization.

(2) The child is under the age of eighteen years.

(3) The child is residing in the United States in the legal and physical custody of the citizen parent pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence.

(b) Subsection (a) shall apply to a child adopted by a United States citizen parent if the child satisfies the requirements applicable to adopted children under section 101(b)(1) .

These requirements are as follows:

101(b)(1)(F)(i) a child, under the age of sixteen at the time a petition is filed in his behalf to accord a classification as an immediate relative under section 201(b), who is an orphan because of the death or disappearance of, abandonment or desertion by, or separation or loss from, both parents, or for whom the sole or surviving parent is incapable of providing the proper care and has in writing irrevocably released the child for emigration and adoption; who has been adopted abroad by a United States citizen and spouse jointly, or by an unmarried United States citizen at least twenty-five years of age, who personally saw and observed the child prior to or during the adoption proceedings; or who is coming to the United States for adoption by a United States citizen and spouse jointly, or by an unmarried United States citizen at least twenty-five years of age, who have or has complied with the preadoption requirements, if any, of the child's proposed residence: Provided, That the Attorney General is satisfied that proper care will be furnished the child if admitted to the United States: Provided further, That no natural parent or prior adoptive parent of any such child shall thereafter, by virtue of such parentage, be accorded any right, privilege, or status under this Act;

*Current text of the INA can be found here: http://www.uscis.gov/propub/DocView/slbid/1/2

Please note that the current law does not contain language deferring to the “competent authority” of the sending country. The language concerning the role of the “competent authority” is new to the portions of the law that this bill seeks to amend. Our question for the drafters and supporters of this legislation is why?

Currently, the US government may investigate and deny a visa if they suspect that a child has been inappropriately labeled an orphan and made available for adoption through abandonment, inadequate care, or death of his parent/guardian. Under the FACE Act, the US government will be unable to do so if the “competent authority” has found that the conditions were met under its laws. To give an example of the consequences, USCIS was able to investigate suspicious abandonments in Vietnam which, though accepted as legitimate abandonments by the Vietnamese authorities, were found to have been the result of fraud. (see: Summary of Irregularities in Adoptions in Vietnam). Under the FACE Act, the US government would not have the authority to do this. PEAR believes that this places children at specific risk of being brought into adoption under fraudulent circumstances.

PEAR wants to ensure that the best language possible regarding ethical child investigation and safeguards against child trafficking is in any proposed legislation concerning international adoption. Legislation that purports to make the adoption process easier for adopting parents must be careful not to place children and families of origin at risk for exploitation and harm. We recommend continuing dialogue between the drafters, sponsors and adoption related NGOs to help ensure that the language used within the Act does not lead to unintended consequences.

2. Failure to address Hague Regulations and Safeguards of the USCIS Adoption Approval Process

The bill as drafted nullifies the current regulations found at 8 CFR 204.3 et seq. for both Hague and non-Hague adoptions. These regulations specifically apply to orphan petitions for immigration. If international adoption becomes a nonimmigrant process, the regulations regarding immigration and the role of the USCIS are void. The current processes and safeguards would have to be rewritten and a new pre-approval process promulgated for international adoptions. This fact is not addressed in the FACE Act or supporting materials provided by its supporters.

PEAR believes that this issue may become a huge concern for adopting families should this bill be passed and made effective before the new regulations are written. We recommend that reference to the Hague Regulations on pre-approval and investigation into processes as well the current safeguards in place for adoptive parents in non-Hague cases be incorporated into the FACE Act.

3. Citizenship Status Protections Are Inadequate

The FACE Act offers provisions granting a nonimmigrant visa to children who enter the US for the purpose of adoption by creating a new nonimmigrant visa under paragraph 15(W) of section 101(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act as follows (highlighting is PEAR’s):

SEC. 202. NONIMMIGRANT STATUS FOR CHILDREN BROUGHT TO THE UNITED STATES TO BE ADOPTED.

NONIMMIGRANT STATUS.—Paragraph (15) of section 101(a) of the immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)) is amended

(1) in subparagraph (U), by striking ‘‘or’’ at the end; and

(2) in subparagraph (V), by striking the period at the end and inserting a “; or”; and

(3) by adding at the end the following:

“(W) an individual brought to the United States as a child to be adopted by a citizen of the United States.”.

These children will then attain US Citizenship once the adopting parents finalize the adoption in the US. If the adopting parents finalize the adoption but fail to apply for a Certificate of Citizenship, the adoptee will be permitted to apply for citizenship at age 18 via a simple form without undergoing the naturalization process. This is definitely a positive step for adoptees with parents who properly complete their adoptions but forget to file for citizenship.

However, the bill fails to address citizenship status of all children who will enter US under the proposed paragraph 15(W), ie a W visa. Of concern to PEAR is the status of children who lawfully enter the United States for the purposes of adoption but, through no fault of their own, have "parents" who fail to finalize the adoption.

Currently, children arriving to the US for the purpose of adoption do so under an immigrant visa called an IR-4 visa. According to the latest data available (Fiscal Year 2008 found at: ‘http://adoption.state.gov/pdf/total.pdf), just over 50% of children arrive to the US on IR-4 visas from 65 different countries and their adopting parents must finalize their adoptions in the US. High percentage countries include South Korea (1062 of 1065 visas) and India (284 of 307 visas). There are no statistics on the number of children whose adopting parents fail to finalize the adoption, but it is an acknowledged issue.

A basic understanding of visas is helpful in following our concerns. Visas are divided into two general categories: immigrant and nonimmigrant. Immigrant visas are issued to persons seeking permanent residence in the US, while nonimmigrant visas typically authorize a stay for a limited period of time and/or with a specific purpose. Immigrant visas confer the status of legal permanent resident, a status required for obtaining citizenship. Nonimmigrant visas do not confer the status of legal permanent residents and holders of these visas cannot apply for citizenship without taking additional steps to be granted an adjustment of status to legal permanent resident by USCIS.

Under the FACE Act, children who enter on the W visa as nonimmigrants and have “parents’ who fail to finalize the adoption by the child’s 18th birthday may face uncertain risks and additional hurdles in obtaining US citizenship. These persons will still be subject to deportation and unable to gain US citizenship unless they apply under the naturalization process after becoming an adult. Because of their nonimmigrant status under the FACE Act, they will need to take an extra steps in gaining legal permanent resident status and becoming citizens. Persons who enter the country under an IR-4 visa already hold immigrant status and do not need to take these steps.

PEAR believes that all children who lawfully enter the United States for the purpose of adoption should be treated equally and fairly on the issue of citizenship regardless of the actions or inactions of their adopting parents. We recommend that language be added to the FACE Act which allows all children entering on a W visa to be considered as legal permanent residents of the US and allow for a simple application for citizenship to children whose “parents” fail to finalize the adoption or apply for citizenship before attaining age of 18. A possible change to address this concern would be to alter the following subparagraph of the FACE Act:

ii) was born outside the United States and was adopted by a parent who is a citizen of the United States before the date on which the person reached 18 years of age

to:

ii) was born outside the United States and was brought to the United States under a W nonimmigrant visa or IR-4 visa with intent of being adopted by a parent who is a citizen of the United States whether or not such adoption occurred on or before the date on which the person reached 18 years of age

Again, PEAR recommends continuing open and respectful dialogue on the part of the drafters, supporters and opponents to the FACE Act to ensure the best possible outcome for all children brought into the US for adoption.

4. Backdating of US Citizenship to Birth

The FACE Act provides that US citizenship will not only be automatic, but will also date back to the date of the child’s birth. PEAR recognizes that the backdating of citizenship to birth is an topic of concern to some adult international adoptees. See, for example:

Jane’s Blog

http://jjtrenka.wordpress.com/2009/07/20/face-act/

Harlow’s Monkey:

http://harlowmonkey.typepad.com/harlows_monkey/2009/07/the-foreign-adopted-childrens-act-face-and-families-for-orphans-act.html

Congress and supporting organizations need to consider whether any benefit coming from backdating citizenship outweighs the concerns about erasing heritage and personal identity expressed by adult international adoptees. The desires of adoptive parents and advocacy groups needs to be secondary to the desires and needs of the people who will be most impacted by this section of the bill - adoptees.

We welcome comments and input from all members of the triad with respect to PEAR’s position and activities surrounding the FACE Act. To comment, please send an email directed to

reform@pear-now.org

C. PEAR opposes House bill 3070, otherwise known as the Families for Orphans Act, FOA or FFO. PEAR has numerous concerns about the Families for Orphan’s Act which we intend to publish on or about September 15, 2009. We encourage prospective and adoptive parents to exercise caution and restraint in supporting this bill until you have both read the bill and reviewed educational comments from a variety of sources. There are numerous changes to current US process and policy which you may not wish to support and which we at PEAR feel place members of the adoption triad at real risk for harm. Some of these changes include:

1. Overly broad definition of an “orphan”;

2. Overly strict definition and requirements for “permanent parental care”;

3. Disregard for cultures with views of family and parental care that differ from ours;

4. Drafting issues involving conflicts and inconsistencies within the bill that may cause confusion and misinterpretation.

Resources and Rumors:

There are many rumors and untruths circulating on adoption boards and newsletters both in favor and opposed to the pending legislation. PEAR respectfully requests that prospective adoptive families and adoptive families exercise caution and restraint in making decisions and taking any action in support or opposition to the legislation until they have fully educated themselves on the purpose and impact of each. We recommend that you read the actual bills, the current laws it will change and the opinions of a variety of commentators, both for and against the legislation.

Comments from other organizations and individuals concerning the above legislation can be read at the following websites and blogs:

Websites:

Ethica: Comments on each bill -

http://www.ethicanet.org/international-adoption-ethica’s-positions-on-pending-legislation

JCICS: Comments on FOA/FFO

http://www.jcics.org/

EACH: Comments on FACE Act -

http://www.equalityforadoptedchildren.org/legislation/face.html

Comments on FFO Act -

http://www.equalityforadoptedchildren.org/legislation/ffo_act.html

Blogs:

Jane's Blog: comments on FACE Act-

http://jjtrenka.wordpress.com/2009/07/20/face-act/

Weaving Families: Comment on FACE Act-

http://www.weavingfamilies.com/blog/2009/7/3/face-act-of-2009.html

Stepping on Legos: Commetns on FACE and FOA/FFO -

http://steppingonlegos.com/blog/face-ffoa-what-are-all-those-acronyms/

Voices for Vietnam Adoption Integrity: Comments on FOA/FFO -

http://www.adoptionintegrity.com/2009/07/24/fighting-for-orphans/

My Minivan Rocks!: Comments on FACE and FOA/FFO-http://myminivanrocks.wordpress.com/2009/07/28/sorry-honey-mommys-busy-opposing-some-bad-adoption-legislation/

****if you have a website or blog pertaining to the above bills that you wish to share, please send to reform@pear-now.org and we will include it****

Ethics, Transparency, Support
~ What All Adoptions Deserve.
http://www.pear-now.org/

Reminder: Adoptee Rights Demonstation July 21

Adoptee Rights Demonstration, a rally and protest in Philadelphia, PA, is being held at 11 AM on July 21, 2009. This rally will coincide with the opening day of the Legislative Summit of the National Conference of State Legislators.

Read more on the blog

Adult adoptees in most of the advanced, industrialized nations of the world have unrestricted access to their original birth records as a matter of right. In contrast, adult adoptees in all but six states in the U.S. are forbidden unrestricted access to their own original birth certificates, due to archaic laws that are a legacy of a culture of shame that stigmatized infertility, out-of-wedlock birth and adoption.

Adult adoptees and their supporters have worked diligently in different states for decades to overturn these laws, but have been opposed by well-funded lobbies representing certain adoption agencies and lawyers who have a vested interest in keeping birth certificates sealed. Their unsupported claims that access violates dubious privacy rights or will increase abortions and decrease adoptions have been categorically refuted by data from states with laws recognizing the rights of adoptees, by studies such as the recently published paper from the Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute, and by court decisions affirming the constitutionality of access laws.

PEAR Open Records Statement

PEAR supports unrestricted access to birth records for all adults adopted as minors. We do not believe any citizen should be discriminated against by removing the right to obtain their personal, official documents. We oppose the imposition of contact vetoes, court orders or third-party agency interference with an adoptee’s right to access his or her original birth certificate.

Adoption should be about the formation of a family for the benefit and best interests of children, not the destruction of identity. As an organization we will support clean legislation submitted in any state that seeks to achieve the goal of opening records.

Permanent Link

Message from Cal Open

PEAR is a partner of Cal Open, a legislative movement in California to restore access of the Original Birth Certificate (OBC) to adult adoptees. We would like to encourage our members and all those in support of Open Records who may be in the Sacramento area to attend a rally in support of Cal Open and AB 372 just prior to the Assembly Judiciary Committee Hearing on the morning of April 28. Please see www.calopen.org for more information on AB 372 and click on the red banner "Attend" for more information on the rally!

PEAR Supports The Adoptee Rights Demonstration to be held in Philadelphia July 21, 2009

PEAR believe that ALL Americans have a right to access government records about their own lives. Adoptees should not be singled out as a class of persons to be denied this basic right. Adoption is about the formation of a family for the benefit and best interests of children, not the destruction of identity. That is why we are supporting the Adoptee Rights Demonstration, a rally and protest in Philadelphia, PA, at 11 AM on July 21, 2009. This rally will coincide with the opening day of the Legislative Summit of the National Conference of State Legislators. For more information, and to register, please see: http://adopteerightsphilly.blogspot.com/