PEAR Ethics Alert and Cautionary Statement on Adoptions from Democratic Republic of Congo

PEAR Ethics Alert and Cautionary Statement on Adoptions from Democratic Republic of Congo

PEAR has received a number of reports from adopting families and NGOs on the ground in Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) regarding unethical conduct by adoption agencies, adopting families, local facilitators/attorneys, orphanage personnel, and officials in the DRC. These reports have come to us over the past year via informal notifications (individual emails, adoption chats, facebook postings), agency website information, blogs, media, NGO reports, US Department of State and Embassy communications, and direct communications with adopting parents and NGOs working with families and children on the ground in the DRC.

Due to the seriousness of these reports, the rapidly increasing interest in adoption from this country, and the continuing abuses of the process in the DRC, it is PEAR’s recommendation that families do not initiate new adoption applications at this time. We also recommend that those families currently in process either switch to another program, consider sponsoring a child, or, at a minimum, exercise extreme caution in pursuing adoption from DRC.  We encourage families who have recently completed or are currently in process to:

• keep themselves aware of ethical issues and red flags for abnormal process;
• honestly evaluate paperwork; 
• question information they receive from orphanages and agencies;
• question fees, especially fees above the average for an agency-assisted adoption and any “mandatory donations” made without a written receipt from the donee;
• request itemized receipts for payments, including donations, in the US and abroad;
• be aware that using a Hague Accredited agency does NOT guarantee an ethical and/or legal, adoption experience; and,
• report any misgivings or suspicions concerning illegal or unethical conduct to appropriate US and Congolese officials.

In addition, we urgently call on the governments of the DRC and the United States to investigate allegations of corruption thoroughly and take any and all measures necessary to address these issues with honesty and transparency in order to protect Congolese children and families as well as US citizen prospective adoptive families. It is the duty of the US Embassies abroad to protect US citizens. Withholding critical information concerning adoption agencies, facilitators, and case trends from US adopting families is placing them at risk of involvement in illegal and/or unethical adoptions.

Ethical concerns include:

1. Lack of proper infrastructure to support ethical adoption practices and thwart unethical, illegal processes. The DRC was recently named a “failed state” by Foreign Policy and the Fund for Peace  http://www.foreignpolicy.com/failed_states_index_2012_interactive. The lack of a proper infrastructure for child welfare, legal processes, and criminal prosecutions leaves an open invitation to the unethical conduct of adoption agencies known for unethical practices in other countries, agencies such as Celebrate Children International (an agency denied Hague accreditation despite numerous attempts, it was involved in the book about Guatemalan adoption corruption, Finding Fernanda). Although the DRC has a Child Protection Code in place, that code is rarely enforced,  earning them a Tier 2 rating by the US DOS for the 5th consecutive year. United States Department of State, 2012 Trafficking in Persons Report - Congo, Republic of the, 19 June 2012, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4fe30cd5c.html [accessed 16 September 2012]. Additionally, frequent reports of harassment, beatings, arbitrary arrests and detentions have increased for those who attempt to  investigate and report human rights violations. 2011 Human Rights Report: Democratic Republic of the Congo Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor 2011 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2011/af/186183.htm
2. Reports of extensive bribes paid to local officials by US adoption agencies and/or their local facilitators (in addition to the direct information we have received from concerned adoptive families and NGO’s, the bribery situation is openly discussed and has been for quite an extensive time, on adoption chats such as Babycenter and adoption blogs, see http://congoadoptions.blogspot.com/ for a blog roll). In fact, in their 2010 report on Human Rights on Congo, the US DOS stated: “The law provides for criminal penalties for official corruption; however, the government did not implement the law effectively, and officials engaged in corrupt practices with impunity.” http://www.state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/2010/af/154341.htm the 2011 Report contains similar concerns for all levels of government, including the judiciary and police. PEAR would like to remind US agencies and families who participate in this bribery of foreign officials are subject to criminal prosecution under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, http://www.justice.gov/criminal/fraud/fcpa/
3. Reports that orphanages are not using the money donated by agencies and adopting parents for the care of children. Donations run anywhere from $800-10,000 for "humanitarian aid" and "upkeep" of the child while in their care.  These same orphanages are not accountable for their funds and repeated visits by adopting parents reveal the children in a continued neglected state and gift donations no where to be found. PEAR has received numerous notifications from both adoptive families and NGOs on the ground in DRC concerning this issue.
4. Repeated reports from foreign NGOs and adopting families of child laundering, baby selling, kidnapping, and coercive relinquishment practices called “harvesting”.  See both What Happened? Delighted In The Lord Blog, 9/27/2012,  http://delightedinthelord.wordpress.com/2012/09/27/what-happened/) and Combatting Corruption in Congo, MLJ Adoption Blog, 6/20/2012, Sonja Brown,  http://mljadoptions.com/Media.aspx?articleID=512 for referral to criminal conduct in adoption.
5. Program growing too quickly without being tested for stability and capacity, creating huge potential for ethical/legal issues due to unrealistic expectations by PAPs and agencies and increasing pressure on local authorities to produce “adoptable” children. In 2008, there were 9 adoptions from DRC to the US. In 2011, that number increased to 133. We have received preliminary reports that numbers for 2012 are at least double. Historically speaking, when an increase of this magnitude happens, the ethics of the program decrease as participants engage in exploitative measures to increase profits. This recently happened in Guatemala, Vietnam, and Ethiopia. While there are many vulnerable children in need of care, the competition in intercountry adoption programs for young, healthy children with “documentation” invites the use of unethical and illegal practices both in finding children and filling orphanages that are merely holding places for children destined for intercountry adoption.
6. Inconsistent and  inexplicable fees. According to the US Embassy in Kinshana, the following fees are typical within DRC for the purposes of completing an adoption: Court fees for an adoption case average between $100 and $300.  Lawyer fees can range from $1,000 to $2,500. http://kinshasa.usembassy.gov/adoption.html Currently, some US agencies are listing “Foreign Fees” that far exceed the costs enumerated above while others appear to reflect true costs. For example, Wasatch International’s foreign fee for DRC is $15,000, whereas Lifeline lists their foreign fee as a mere $1000. MLJ Adoptions does not breakdown an exact amount for the foreign fee, listing it instead as combined with in-country services for the child pending adoption, hotel costs for the family while incountry, and deposits on post placement visits ($500), the total of which is $24,000. The average annual income in DRC is $675 per year (compare to USA $45835.5 in 2008). Lawyers fees for adoption are $1,000 to $2,500, where is the remaining money going to?

We are dismayed to make this recommendation in light of the high numbers of children in need in DCR. However, we believe that the focus in DRC has shifted from finding solutions for children in need of families to finding children to fit the needs of an increasing number prospective adoptive parents. We suspect that some agencies are unrealistically recruiting families into DRC programs to fill the financial gap caused by recent closures and slow downs in previously high-volume countries.

We encourage those interested in DCR adoptions to read the articles cited above as well as  reports contained here:

• Prevalence, Abuse & Exploitation of Street Children, 2010 http://gvnet.com/streetchildren/Congo.htm
• Adopting from Africa, Saving the Children? Think Africa Press 6 August 2012 by Elizabeth Willmott Harrop  http://thinkafricapress.com/legal/adoption-trade-sets-shop-africa.
• ISS Report: Investigating the Grey Zones of Intercountry Adoption, http://iss-usa.org/pressdetails.asp?IdPress=59

If, after reading the above, you are determined to adopt from DRC, please do everything in your power to ensure that your child is a true orphan in need of intercountry adoption as the only viable option of alternative care. Follow the tips and suggestions for those adopting from Congo that are found here: http://kitumaini.blogspot.com.

PEAR continues to monitor adoption from DRC and will update our recommendations when believe adequate controls have been put into place to ensure ethical adoptions.

---

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

ISS Report: INVESTIGATING THE GREY ZONES OF INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION

The ISS (International Social Services) has released its report entitled: INVESTIGATING THE GREY ZONES OF INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION. Anyone involved in or considering intercountry adoption should read this detailed report and its suggestions for improving  intercountry adoption practices.

PEAR Members and Newsletter Members can access the 142 page report on PEAR's Yahoo Groups.  The full  ISS Report is also available for download on the ISS USA webpage: http://iss-usa.org/pressdetails.asp?IdPress=59

Excerpt from the Foreword, written by David Smolin:

INVESTIGATING THE GREY ZONES OF INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION illuminates thecontemporary paradoxes of intercountry adoption (ICA). While theoretically regulated by the 1993 Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption (THC-93), in fact almost two-thirds of contemporary intercountry adoptions are not legally governed by the treaty. While purportedly addressed at least in broad terms by the fundamental 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), a large proportion of intercountry adoptions in fact arise in circumstances where there have been severe violations of the rights of both children and adults, due to poverty and/or discrimination based on disability, gender, race, or ethnic group. Thus, where children’s rights and human rights are respected and successfully implemented, there are very few children legitimately in need of adoption. Further, while adoption is theoretically a means to ameliorate rights deprivations and to implement the best interests of the child, as actually practiced it easily becomes driven by the desire of adults for children, and by financial incentives. Thus, there is a severe temptation to create systems which use ICA to address problems such as poverty and discrimination, when from a child rights and human rights perspective it should be mandatory instead to remedy the underlying rights and equality violations. At the same time, vulnerable children clearly cannot wait for poverty, discrimination and underlying structural problems to be alleviated in their societies before receiving appropriate interventions, providing some ambiguity in practical terms as to the proper implementation of the subsidiarity principle. These paradoxes indeed create “grey zones.”

The Report goes beyond addressing “grey zones” to describe the zones of clearly illicit and illegal activity: children kidnapped and sold for ICA; fraud and money being used as inducements to obtain relinquishments; false documentation being supplied to cover up these means of illicitly obtaining children.    Concern with such illegal conduct was a precipitating concern of the THC-93 as reflected by the text and work of preparation; that these abusive practices remain persistent and widespread is demonstrated by the fact that the HCCH Special Commission of 2010 devoted the first day to “the abduction, the sale of, or traffic in children” in the context of intercountry adoption. Unfortunately the most powerful actors in ICA, including governments, adoption agencies, and adoptive parents, have powerful incentives to deny or minimize the extent of these illicit practices. Thus, it is extremely welcome that such an internationally significant organization as ISS has in this Report provided such a detailed documentation and analysis of these illicit practices. Hopefully, all involved in ICA will carefully consider the facts, analysis, and recommendations contained in this report.

David M. SMOLIN
Professor of Law Cumberland Law School
Samford University 
Birmingham, Alabama USA

---

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

ISS Report: Haiti: "Expediting" intercountry adoptions in the aftermath of a natural disaster ... preventing future harm.

Haiti: "Expediting" intercountry adoptions in the aftermath of a natural disaster ... preventing future harm.

Press Release from ISS*:

This report examines intercountry adoption practices in the aftermath of the earthquake in Haiti. Haiti has been a ‘popular' country of origin, meaning that thousands of children were at some stage of the adoption process - albeit simply "identified" as potentially adoptable - when the earthquake struck. There were diverse and contrasting responses by ‘receiving countries' and others to the subsequent adoption of children displaced abroad. This report documents and reviews the vast range of responses and the exceptional measures implemented by some countries in expediting firstly, the transfer of cases (with an adoption judgment) as well as secondly, adoptions and other procedures (without a judgment).

In the context of these exceptional measures, the principal objective of this report is to identify lessons to be learned from this situation in order to prevent future harm. It is not the intention of the report to denounce a particular country, but rather to provide an objective analysis of the fast-tracking measures implemented, against the backdrop of international norms.

A copy of the report may be downloaded at the following website:

http://www.iss-ssi.org/2009/index.php?id=49

*ISS is an international network of non-profit organizations, composed of professional staff and specialized volunteers, committed to preserving, establishing or re-establishing the links between family members in an international context. ISS is dedicated to finding solutions for the protection of unaccompanied minors, neglected and abandoned children, family searches, reunification and repatriation, legal assistance, individual counseling and ensuring that the needs and rights of its beneficiaries are respected. (From the ISS Vision and Mission Statement)

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

UPDATE: Haiti & Nepal - ISS March 2010 Monthly Review

Excerpts from the International Social Services March 2010 Monthly Review



HAITI: Update on child protection measures post earthquake
UNICEF has published a short report summarising the situation in Haiti post earthquake, paying specific attention to the needs of children. ISS is working on a report (which is still at a draft stage) with UNICEF on the adoption situation in Haiti post-earthquake. Available statistics indicate that approximately 1120 intercountry adoptions were carried out in Haiti in 2009. As of 23 February 2010, at least 1539 children had been adopted out of Haiti following the earthquake on 12 January 2010. USA, France, Canada, Netherlands and Germany arranged the transfer of approximately 1500 children for the purpose of intercountry adoption. The remaining children were sent to Switzerland, Belgium, Spain and Italy. The latter two countries had suspended adoptions from Haiti in 2007 and only received the final authorisation for the remaining 9 children, from the pre-suspension period, to leave after the earthquake. ISS is concerned that the checks and balances, necessitating a 2 to 3 year period for processing intercountry adoptions under ‘normal’ circumstances in Haiti were not adequately respected post earthquake for all 1539 cases. Furthermore, UNICEF remarks that ‘reports of children being illegally displaced across borders ostensibly for inter-country adoption, care (including medical care) or for exploitation notably in the Dominican Republic, have continued unabated since the very first days.’
Source: UNICEF report http://www.crin.org/docs/UNICEF%20HAITI%20One-Month%20Sitrep%2012%20Feb%20(updated,%20compressed).pdf

NEPAL: Hague Conference calls for reforms to prepare the country for its ratification of THC-1993
In November 2009, the Hague Conference undertook a preliminary mission in Nepal in order to assess the needs of the country to prepare itself to the ratification of THC-1993 at the demand of the Nepalese Government. The results of this mission demonstrate clearly that an adequate legal framework for intercountry adoption in Nepal is missing. The Nepalese Terms and Conditions 2008 are not compliant neither with the art.21 of the Convention of the Right of the Child nor with the most important principles of THC-1993 such as the best interests principle, the principle of subsidiarity, lack of support and counselling for the birth parents about the legal effects of relinquishment or abandonment of their child etc. Other challenges include the identification of abuses linked to the declaration of the adoptability of the child, lack of transparency and accountability of the money coming to Nepal, falsification of documents of the child and the absence of a clear policy of intercountry adoption as a child protection measure. In light of these weaknesses, the Hague Conference with a number of receiving countries and other international organisations have offered to provide continued support to Nepal. In particular, the Hague Conference made some key recommendations such as the development of programmes for family preservation, a better regulation of Children’s Homes, the establishment of a new law on adoption integrated in a comprehensive law on child protection, capacity building and the elimination of financial gain form intercountry adoption. The Hague Conference finally underlines that a temporary suspension of intercountry adoption system will be necessary to reform the intercountry adoption system.
Source: Hague Conference Report http://www.hcch.net/upload/wop/nepal_rpt09.pdf


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