Showing posts with label India. Show all posts
Showing posts with label India. Show all posts

Friday, March 29, 2013

DOS Adoption Notice: India Partially Lifts Suspension on Acceptance of New Adoption Applications


India  
March 28, 2013

India Partially Lifts Suspension on Acceptance of New Adoption Applications

This Adoption Notice is a follow up to the Notice of November 30, 2012.

The Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) informed us that it is accepting new applications for intercountry adoptions from prospective adoptive parents in foreign countries, including the United States, seeking to adopt children habitually resident in India.  CARA will accept applications for children that CARA classifies as having special needs, e.g., children with a physical or mental disability, children older than five years of age, and children with twin siblings.  For more information, please see CARA’s website .

CARA indicates it may be another two to three months before it can resume accepting adoption applications for children who are habitually resident in India, but are not classified as having special needs.

CARA will continue to process applications registered prior to December 1, 2012.  We will provide an update when CARA begins accepting new applications for children habitually resident in India who are not classified as having special needs.

If you have any questions, please contact us by phone at 1-888-407-4747 or e-mail us at adoptionUSCA@state.gov.  

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

Friday, November 30, 2012

DOS Adoption Alert: Freeze on New Intercountry Adoption Applications

India
November 30, 2012

Alert: Freeze on New Intercountry Adoption Applications

Effective December 1, 2012, India will not accept new applications for intercountry adoptions from the United States. or other foreign adoption service providers until further notice, in order to clear a backlog of existing cases.

Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) will continue to process applications registered prior to December 1, 2012.  We will provide an update when CARA begins accepting new applications.
If you have any questions, please contact us by phone at 1-888-407-4747 or e-mail us at adoptionUSCA@state.gov.  

http://adoption.state.gov/country_information/country_specific_alerts_notices.php?alert_notice_type=alerts&alert_notice_file=india_1

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

Friday, June 1, 2012

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/

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

DOS Adoption Notice India: Notice: CARA Lifts Temporary Suspension of Acceptance of New Dossiers

India
March 7, 2012
Notice: CARA Lifts Temporary Suspension of Acceptance of New Dossiers


This is an update to our notice dated October 5, 2011 announcing a temporary suspension on the acceptance of new intercountry adoption cases in India.

CARA has informed the U.S. Central Authority that effective January 20, 2012, it will begin accepting new adoption applications under its new guidelines.

Under the new guidelines dossiers must be forwarded to CARA. CARA will no longer accept any dossier through a RIPA.

If you have any questions about the details of the guidelines or suspension, please do not hesitate to contact us by phone at 1-888-407-4747 or e-mail us at adoptionUSCA@state.gov.

http://adoption.state.gov/country_information/country_specific_alerts_notices.php?alert_notice_type=notices&alert_notice_file=india_4

***Please note: the DOS Notice states that CARA will begin accepting applications on January 20, 2012 and the Notice is dated March 7, 2012, either DOS has a typo in the date or the tense. PEAR has submitted a request for clarification.

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

Friday, November 18, 2011

Nepal & India -- Dal Bahadur Phadera & the suppressed UNICEF report








Dal Bahadur Phadera & the
suppressed UNICEF report


UNICEF Nepal's suppressed Humla report is now available on the web.

The reason UNICEF Nepal suppressed (i.e., never published) their 2005 report is unclear.

Nor is it clear why trafficked Nepali children were left at the Michael Job Centre,
Tamil Nadu,
for over six years.


UNICEF FWLD Displacement of Children From Humla 2005:
Here is an extract (one case from the report):

Bikram Bhandari, Thehe VDC

"Bikram Bhandari informed the team that his son (Machche Bhandari now changed to Manish) was sent 6 years ago (Date: 1998) with Kali Bahadur Bhandari from Humla to Katmandu. Ram Bahadur and Gam Singh where 2 other children also sent with Machche Bandari -- they are also now missing however the team did not meet with their parents. Once in Katmandu. Chakra Bahadur Shahi (ex-parliamentarian member) arranged addmition of the children to Bal Mandir (a government organization)

From Katmandu, Machche was sent to a foreign country though Bal Mandir. This information was relayed to Bikram, 3 years ago (Date: 2001) by a member of Bal Mandir when Bikram came to Kathmandu looking for his son.

When Bikram came to know that his child was sent to another country he reqested to meet with his son but the staff of Bal Mandir said that Bikram had to pay 2 lack rupies [lakh rupees]
for this to be arranged.

Bikram explained to the team that the CDO and VDC had prepaired a recommendation letter stating that Machche Bhandari's (Bikrams son) parents where Dead. This was false information.

Bikram would like to meet with his son but is unable to -- he expressed anger about this situation.

Only Kali Bahadur had the information on Bikrams son, however Kali is now dead and Chakra dose not know the information so there is no way of finding out about the child."


For background, see:

On Children's Homes -- Lonely Planet:

http://www.lonelyplanet.com/thorntree/thread.jspa?threadID=2032255&start=0&limit=1000

Read the full thread -- a horrific, first-hand account of D.B. Phadera.


Here are two extracts (from a Western volunteer):

"The orphanage I Managed was registered, but not once did I ever see anyone check up on it. My orphanage being registered also did not make it a good place. My job was to run the home and do everything I could to protect the children from the owner and his goons. The owner was a known childtrafficker who was above the law. The NGO ISIS had conducted and investigation that traced over 530 girls that he had sold to brothels in India. They turned the investigation over to UNICEF who promptly leaked it giving him time to pay off the right people. He spent all of 2 nights in jail. I really prefer not to get into how horrible this man is to children, but he is just one of many respectable businessmen who have registered orphanages that are just ways for him to earn money through exploiting children. Like at many homes, the term "owner" only means that he had custody over the children, not that he paid for anything or did anything to care for the children. I actually had to stop a group of swiss tourists from handing over 2000 USD directly to one of his goons (who was himself a pedophile)."

and:

"DB Phadera...was the owner of my orphanage. He lived just across the path from me. Words cannot fully describe how horrible this man is. My job involved documenting the hell out of each of the kids in order to try to keep them safe from him- and it wasn't always enough. He is truly the most despicable person i have ever met. When an 8 year old girl disappeared from the home, he smiled at me as he told me she was only there on vacation. When he had disputes with the organizations that funded the home, he would cut off their ability to bring the children food. He literally would starve the children as a bargaining tool. When I first arrived at the home, he was allowing his goons free reign and many would come and demand to sleep in the beds with the kids at night. It took everything I had to put a stop to that practice. He forces children to beg, sells them into servitude, or worse, into brothels. For him it's all an equation of how he can make the most money. The lucky children are the ones he just abandons. Many good organizations in the valley have rescued kids from DB. All of the ones I listed in my previous post are among them. their efforts are noble and deserve support. But DB is a politically powerful man. As long as he remains free, he will continue to bring in more Humli children and subject them to cruelty, abuse, and in the best case scenario simple neglect.

Having to deal with him on a daily basis was one of the hardest things I've ever had to do. My kids needed me there as my foreignness did give them some level of protection and the alternative would have been a manager of his choice, but I couldn't rock the boat too much- he had threatened to kill a previous volunteer and she had to leave the country.

Corruption in Nepal creates this culture of impunity which allows traffickers to operate."


See also:

Lt. Col. Philip Holmes explains why his charity rescued Nepali girls from the Michael Job Centre (video) -- PEAR Nepal:


"After the girls' return to Nepal the trafficker who had been involved, DB Phadera, orchestrated a vicious media campaign against the charity."


The Indian preacher and the fake orphan scandal -- Daily Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/8856050/The-Indian-preacher-and-the-fake-orphan-scandal.html

On the Western supporters of the Michael Job Centre (Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India).


Long journey home -- The Nepali Times:

http://www.nepalitimes.com.np/issue/2011/09/30/ThisIsIt/18594

On The Esther Benjamins Trust's rescue of 23 Nepali girls (Tamil Nadu -- September 2011).


A trafficker remains scot-free -- The Kathmandu Post:

http://pearadoptinfo-nepal.blogspot.com/2011/07/trafficker-remains-scot-free-kathmandu.html

On trafficker D.B. Phadera & the Michael Job Centre.


Paper Orphans documentary posted on the web -- PEAR Nepal:

http://pearadoptinfo-nepal.blogspot.com/2011/10/paper-orphans-documentary-posted-on-web.html

The Terre des Hommes/Image Ark documentary on adoption trafficking in Humla (the NCO/Bal Mandir kidnappings). Some Humli children ended up in India -- others in the inter-country adoption trade.


How our media helps sell children (by asking the wrong questions) -- Ushaft's Blog:

http://ushaft.wordpress.com/2011/10/12/how-nepali-media-helps-sell-children/

Andrew Undershaft on the media allies of trafficker Dal Bahadur Phadera.


Adhocism and the culture of press-release journalism (part one) -- Ushaft's Blog:


Andrew Undershaft on Anuradha Koirala's curious support of the traffickers.




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

Friday, October 7, 2011

DOS Adoption Notice: India Update on CARA's Temporary Suspension of Acceptance of New Dossiers


October 5, 2011

Notice: Update on CARA's Temporary Suspension of Acceptance of New Dossiers

This is an update to our notice dated July 22, 2011 announcing a temporary suspension on the acceptance of new intercountry adoption cases in India. CARA informed us that they will not accept new adoption applications until December 31, 2011.

CARA is giving priority to processing applications started before the release of the new guidelines before accepting new applications. We will update the notice promptly once CARA notifies us when they are ready to receive new applications.

CARA's latest announcement reiterated that all dossiers must be forwarded to CARA under the new guidelines. CARA will no longer accept any dossier through a RIPA.

If you have any questions about the details of the guidelines or suspension, please do not hesitate to contact us by phone at 1-888-407-4747 or e-mail us at adoptionUSCA@state.gov.

http://adoption.state.gov/country_information/country_specific_alerts_notices.php?alert_notice_type=notices&alert_notice_file=india_3

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

Friday, July 22, 2011

DOS Adoption Notice: CARA Announces Release of New Guidelines and Temporary Suspension of Acceptance of New Dossiers

Notice: CARA Announces Release of New Guidelines and Temporary Suspension of Acceptance of New Dossiers

CARA recently released new guidelines for intercountry adoptions. Please visit CARA’s website at http://www.adoptionindia.nic.in/ for further information.

CARA also recently announced a temporary freeze on the acceptance of new adoption dossiers as it attempts to clear a backlog of cases pending from before implementation of new guidelines governing intercountry adoptions in India. CARA foresees lifting the suspension by approximately the end of September 2011 and will advise when they are ready to accept new dossiers. We will update the notice promptly. Applications that are already in process prior to the effective date of the new guidelines will proceed as normal.

Please note that the new guidelines direct that after September 30, 2011, all dossiers must be forwarded to CARA. CARA will no longer accept any dossier through a RIPA.

If you have any questions about the details of the guidelines or suspension, please do not hesitate to contact us by phone at 1-888-407-4747 or e-mail us at adoptionUSCA@state.gov.

http://adoption.state.gov/country_information/country_specific_alerts_notices.php?alert_notice_type=notices&alert_notice_file=india_2

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

Saturday, April 23, 2011

MEDIA: Hindu Times - Supreme Court notice to Centre, CARA on plea to review adoption policy

Supreme Court notice to Centre, CARA on plea to review adoption policy

J. Venkatesan
Published: April 22, 2011 23:06 IST | Updated: April 23, 2011 02:44 IST http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article1718716.ece?css=print

‘Government has failed to ensure a record of adoptable children is maintained'

The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) and the Union government on a petition to review the adoption regime in the country, with a particular reference to the status and functioning of the CARA and procedural hindrances.

A Bench of Chief Justice S.H. Kapadia and Justices K.S. Radhakrishnan and Swatanter Kumar issued the notice on Thursday on a petition filed by the Bangalore-based Ashraya and five other adoption agencies.

The petitioners said that according to an article carried in April 2007 in The Times, London, “more than 11 million babies in India are abandoned, of which almost 90 per cent are girls. Most of these would become beggars, prostitutes or menial workers when they attain adulthood. Shockingly, as per official statistics from what is termed a ‘young nation,' the number of these children that are adopted every year is abysmal — just over 3,500…”

The petitioners said The United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) had also reported that an abnormally large number of Indian children were exploited and subjected to the worst forms of trafficking, all without the protection of a loving family. They said the CARA was mandated and funded by the government to monitor and regulate placement agencies, encourage timely adoption, avoid unseemly delays and duplication of processes, provide training and facilitate dissemination of research, but it had failed on every single count.

“Families seeking to adopt are left languishing as they wait for months to be given an adoptable child, and the reams of red-tape along with the lure of foreign money ensures that more children are sought to be given to foreign parents than Indian ones, which is contrary to the norm.”

They said the Union government had gravely failed to ensure that a record of the adoptable children was maintained and direct the State governments to register all child welfare institutions as per the provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000. They sought a direction to appoint an independent body of agency representatives, childcare experts, psychologists, physicians, lawyers, sociologists and planners to review the entire adoption regime, with a particular reference to the CARA's status and functioning and the procedural hindrances to an expeditious adoption procedure.


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

Wednesday, December 22, 2010

DOS Adoption Notice: India

Adoption Notice

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Bureau of Consular Affairs
Office of Children’s Issues



New Procedures for Identifying and Treating Active Tuberculosis


December 20, 2010


On October 1, 2010, the U.S. Embassy’s panel physicians in India began implementing the Center for Disease Control’s (CDC’s) 2007 Tuberculosis Technical Instructions which are required procedures for screening for all immigrant visa applicants, including adopted children. These include requirements that may impact the pace at which some adoption cases can be concluded. Adoptive parents should take note of the following information in their adoption planning.


For most children under 2 years of age, there will be no change in the testing procedure because no Tuberculin Skin Test (TST) is required. However, if the child shows signs of tubercolosis when examined by a panel physician the child will require the additional screening for tubercolosis that may take up to minimum of 8 weeks to complete. The Embassy’s panel pediatricians estimate that many children will show exposure for tubercolosis after the TST, but a very small number will show abnormal chest x-rays. If the child has a normal chest x-ray, no further testing is required.


For the vast majority of children, implementation of these requirements will cause no significant delay in the processing of their cases. Adoptive parents should consult with their adoption service provider if they have concerns.

  • All children between 2-14 years of age require a new TST according to CDC specifications. This TST is currently available at:

Max Medcentre
N - 110, Panchsheel Park
New Delhi

  • If the TST indicates the child has been exposed to tuburcolosis, then the child will need a chest x-ray to check for abnormalities. All children found to have abnormal chest x-rays will require a new screening procedure for tuburcolosis that requires a minimum of 8 weeks to complete. Adoptive parents should be aware of this delay and factor it into their plans. Children whose x-rays are not abnormal will require no additional testing or delay.

  • All applicants with chest x-ray findings suggestive of tuberculosis, or those who are suspected to have laryngeal tubercolosis, shall undergo three (3) sputum examinations. Sputum specimens will be collected at the designated laboratory:

SRL-Religare
GP-26, Maruti Industrial Estate
Udyog Vihar, Sector-18
Gurgaon, Haryana, India)


If the panel physician receives positive test results from the laboratory, the case will require drug susceptibility testing, and isolates will then be sent from SRL-Religare to:


Quest Diagnostics
A-17 Info City, Sector 32
Gurgaon, Haryana, India).


This new requirement will impose a delay of 45 to 60 days in the processing such cases.


  • Children who have active tuberculosis will be required to submit to six months of Directly Observed Therapy (DOT) provided at the following clinic:

IOM in Max Medcentre
N - 110, Panchsheel Park
New Delhi

It is estimated that fewer than 10 orphans per year will require this treatment.

The CDC is phasing in these 2007 TB Technical Instructions worldwide in order to better identify and treat immigrant visa applicants with active TB. The requirements are not in effect in all countries at this time.


United States immigration law requires the medical examination for immigration purproses to be conducted only be approved panel physicians, prior to the issuance of an immigrant visa. It is the CDC’s responsibility to protect Americans from infectious diseases and the Embassy is required to follow all CDC guidelines. These requirements will greatly improve the Embassy’s ability to identify visa applicants with active TB, and to ensure they receive the most effective treatment for their condition before they are granted visas. Panel physicians who conduct medical examinations are required to verify that immigrant visa applicants have met all of medical evaluation requirements.


For information the October 1, 2009 Technical Instructions for Tuberculosis Treatment and Screening, please refer to: http://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeehealth/exams/ti/panel/tuberculosis-panel-technical-instructions.html.

For a list of Frequently Asked Questions regarding Tuberculosis Screening for International Adoptees, please refer to: http://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeehealth/exams/adoptees-tuberculosis-screening-faq.html for detailed information.


http://adoption.state.gov/news/india.html



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

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

MEDIA:18 Preet Mandir adoption cases get HC go-ahead

18 Preet Mandir adoption cases get HC go-ahead

The Central Adoption Resource Agency (CARA) has been directed by the Bombay High Court to consider 18 cases of international adoption recommended by Pune-based adoption agency Preet Mandir.

A division bench of chief justice Mohit Shah and justice RP Sondur-Baldota, on Friday, allowed CARA, an autonomous body under the ministry of women & child development, to process the adoption applications of 18 children that were in the pipeline.

The court order came following an application filed by CARA seeking permission to process 18 adoption cases that had been halted due to revocation of Preet Mandir’s licence.

A South African national of Indian origin, who had filed an application for adoption with Preet Mandir, had filed another plea seeking that the application be processed.

In February, CARA had suspended Preet Mandir’s licence on May 20, the licence was revoked following the Central Bureau of Investigation registering a case against the adoption house for alleged irregularities in sending children on inter-country adoptions.

Complete text can be found here:

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

Tuesday, June 29, 2010

PEAR's Response to "The Baby Business"

The Schuster Institute for Investigative Journalism asked a number of experts, practitioners, and advocates in international adoption to respond to “The Baby Business,” Democracy Journal, Summer 2010 by E. J. Graff. You may read all the responses .

This is PEAR's response:

It is an unfortunate truth that international adoption is plagued by corruption. We appreciate E.J. Graff’s coverage of the issues leading to corrupt practices and her well-thought-out solutions. Parents for Ethical Adoption Reform (PEAR) appreciates the opportunity to share our comments. As an organization dedicated to reforming adoption law and policy, we would like to focus our comments on the eight proposed improvements to international adoption.

Our current system of adoption policy and regulation is too often reactionary rather than preventative, increasing the risk of corruption and adoption failure. PEAR believes that by requiring federal licensing/accreditation and oversight of agencies; criminalizing the purchase and sale of children for adoption; and severely curtailing fees by limiting to them to true costs for services and eliminating mandatory donations, international adoption has the best chance of becoming ethical and transparent.

1. Prohibition against cash transfers.

PEAR agrees that prohibiting cash transactions in payment for adoption-related services can go a long way to eliminating corrupt practices. Eliminating cash transactions and requiring receipts for all payments as well as requiring adopting parents to provide a sworn accounting during their I600 process would help clean up corruption on the foreign side of the adoption process. Untraceable sums can delay or prevent investigative bodies from connecting the perpetrators to any child-trafficking crime.

2. Hold U.S. adoption agencies accountable for all their overseas partners’ actions.

PEAR believes that adoption agencies need to be responsible for the actions of their overseas providers whether they are “supervised” or “unsupervised” under U.S. State Department regulations.

That all agencies do not thoroughly investigate documents submitted by independent parties, which can identify irregular documentation, promote the reunification of children with their families of origin, and eventually prevent the improper separation of children from their families, is unconscionable.

Fraudulent documentation—either declaring an identified child as an unknown abandoned child, or with falsified birth parent information—has been proven in Vietnam1, Cambodia2, India3, Guatemala4, Nepal5, Samoa6, Ethiopia7, and China8. Adoptees are doubly victimized by these practices. First, they denied their natural right to be raised by their willing and capable birth families; second, they are robbed of the opportunity to find or know their birth family and medical histories due to the obliteration of their identities.

3. Third, limit and track adoptions’ overseas fees in more detail.

PEAR also believes that changes need to be made where there are mandatory donations required of adopting families. First, we disapprove of mandatory donations. We believe that mandatory fees create a dependency upon international adoption and encourage corruption in how children enter the adoption system. We also believe that these mandatory donations are unethical in that countries are charging a fee and being relieved of the financial obligation of raising parentless children. It is a win-win situation for the governments that often provides little benefit to the children residing in institutional care. However, as a realistic response to the existence of these fees, where these fees exist as part of a foreign government’s adoption law (such as in China), we believe that all “mandatory” donations should be payable through an NGO or government entity with full accountability for the disbursement of these funds.

Without any transparency about how much money goes directly to foreign governments and/or orphanages, PEAR is concerned that it becomes impossible to discover what percentage of adoption fees ever reaches its intended destination. It is imperative that there is complete transparency with all adoption fees, and that agencies disclose exactly where all adoption fees are spent.

4. Fourth, limit and track how much agencies can pay their overseas partners, workers, and independent contractors.

PEAR believes that fee transparency would prevent overcharging of clients. Financial gain from the large amount of untraceable in-country payments is the source of many “paper orphans.” Since these sums can run into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, far in excess of normal fees to child-welfare workers, corruption often soon follows. It is very difficult for those who are paid a pittance in difficult circumstances to resist the temptation of large amounts of cash, but child-welfare workers should not be motivated by profit to steal, purchase, or solicit children for placement.

5. Fifth, earmark some small amount of federal funds for CoA investigations.

PEAR believes that accrediting bodies need to be appropriately funded so they may thoroughly investigate agencies, their in-country partners, and the complaints submitted. They need to have funding beyond the application fees and adoption lobby support to do so. Otherwise, regulations are meaningless.

6. Sixth, inform the American public about individual adoption agencies’ records.
Pre-adoptive parents can be either unaware of the corruption in international adoption or in denial about it even when documented by media or other adoptive parents. Parents are hindered by the lack of unbiased and publicly provided information about the records and histories of agencies, their employees, and in-country partners. PEAR believes that the U.S. State Department should provide information about each agency’s history of orphan visa denials.


In addition, the State Department should require accrediting bodies (The Council on Accreditation and The Colorado Department of Human Services) to reveal the status of all accreditation applications. Currently, only approved and denied agencies are reported, not new, pending, or withdrawn applications. An agency’s application for accreditation can be pending for months or years, indicating potential issues, but this information is not publicly available.

Furthermore, under current COA practices, previously filed complaints are disregarded when reviewing a new accreditation application of a previously denied agency. This is counterproductive. Families need the ability to see the status of all applications so that they can file or re-file their complaints.

We also suggest that Congress amend the current regulations to allow public record of the reasons for denial of Hague accreditation. Under the current regulations, reasons for denial are kept confidential between the agency and the accrediting body. Prospective adoptive parents adopting from non-Hague countries and the public are kept in the dark as to the reasons for denial and often misled by denied agencies concerning the denials. It is impossible for prospective clients to make informed decisions about agency selection without having full information concerning the agency.

7. Seventh, enable the State Department to heighten the scrutiny of, or suspend accepting, an individual adoption agency’s visa applications from a particular country, whether that country is “Hague” or not.

The State Department should be expressly authorized by Congress to investigate adoptions by specific agencies, facilitators, or orphanages that have shown patterns of problems. The State Department should be able to restrict or eliminate orphan visas from agencies, facilitators, or orphanages known to have produced fraudulent documentation for visa applications. Problems or patterns should be publicly reported so that prospective parents can make informed choices. If adoption agency personnel or contractors have been associated with trafficking or other criminal behavior involving adoptee identity issues, the State Department should be required to inform U.S. citizens who used their services, even if the findings come many years after the adoptions took place.

Lastly, we believe that all immigrant orphan visas, not just Hague country visas, should go through State Department investigation prior to a family traveling overseas. We recognize that this limitation is in place because there is no agreement between the sending country and the U.S. which authorizes the State Department to investigate. We suggest that the U.S. enter into bilateral agreements with all non-Hague countries authorizing the State Department to investigate orphan status and visa eligibility prior to the adoption being finalized in-country.

8. Eighth, criminalize the purchase of children for international adoption.

PEAR believes that one of the most important steps to help eliminate corruption is to criminalize the purchase of children for international adoption. It seems intuitive that purchase of children for any purpose would be illegal, yet the trafficking or purchase of children for adoption in a non-Hague adoption is not illegal under current U.S. law. This oversight in U.S. laws must be corrected, and meaningful punishment instituted for individuals and organizations involved in such reprehensible behavior.

In addition, practices of soliciting children for adoption and tricking or coercing birth families into relinquishment should be criminalized. In the culture of some placing countries—particularly in Pacific Island9 and African nations10 —parents may not understand that adoption means the permanent legal severing of ties with their child.

In PEAR’s opinion, Lauryn Galindo11 in Cambodia, Scott & Karen Banks12 in Samoa, and others have received ludicrously light or negligible sentences after conviction of crimes connected to the trafficking of children. If potential adoption-trafficking charges were more severe—and were enforced by the courts—we believe that agencies and their facilitators would be less likely to be lured by greed or misguided intentions and would have to abide by higher ethical standards.

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




1 U.S. Embassy Hanoi, Summary of Irregularities in Adoptions in Vietnam (April 25 2008).


2 United States of America vs Lauryn Galindo, Plea Agreement (June 23, 2004).


3 Rory Callinan, Stolen Children (Time August 21, 2008).

Asha Krishnakumar, The Adoption Market (Frontline, India, May 21, 2005).


4 Victoria Corderi, To Catch a Baby Broker (NBC Dateline, January 20, 2008).

Juan Carlos Llorca, US couple almost adopted stolen Guatemalan baby (AP July 31 2008).

Juan Carlos Llorca, To save adopted girl, Calif. couple gives her up (AP, November 22, 2008).


5 UNICEF and Terre des homes Foundation, Adopting: The Rights of the Child (2008).


6 Kirsten Stewart, U.S. families stunned and angry (Salt Lake Tribune, June 17, 2007).

Lisa Rosetta, Dreams of parents in two worlds shattered by scandal (Salt Lake Tribune. June 6, 2007).


7 John Nicol, Canadian parents raise concerns (CBC News, March 19, 2009).

Von Andrea Rexer, Kindergeld (Profil, January 19, 2009).


8 Barbara Demick, Chinese babies stolen by officials for foreign adoption (Los Angeles Times, September 20, 2009).

Peter S. Goodman, Stealing Babies for Adoption (Washington Post, March 12, 2006).

Barbara Demick, A family in China made babies their business (LA Times, January, 24, 2010).

Jimmy Wang, China's Kidnapped Children (New York Times, April 4 2009).


9 Jini L. Roby and Stephanie Matsumura, If I Give You My Child, Aren’t We Family? A Study of Birthmothers Participating in Marshall Islands - U.S. Adoptions (Adoption Quarterly Volume 5, Issue 4 June 2002).

Galvin Law, International Adoption–The Good, the Bad and the Ugly; A South Pacific Perspective, Samoa – The “Sending State". A Brief Outline of Customary Child Adoption Practices in Samoa (September 1, 2005).


10 Katharine Houreld, Africa adoptions clouded by uncertainty and confusion (South Coast Today, March 9, 2008).

Nadene Ghouri, Liberia: Children for Sale (BBC Crossing Continents, November, 13, 2008).


11 U.S. Department of Justice, Hawaiian resident sentenced to 18 months in prison in Cambodian adoption conspiracy (United States Attorney, Western District of Washington, November 19, 2004).


12 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Defendants sentenced in Samoan adoption scam (Feb 25, 2009).

Brett L. Tolman and Brett Parkinson, Sentencing Memorandum (United States District Court, District of Utah, Northern Division, Case No. 1:07-CR-19 DS, Feb, 24,2009).

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Media: India - Mother fights to meet son 11 years after his kidnap


Mother fights to meet son 11 years after his kidnap
From
June 6, 2010

AN INDIAN mother faces a heart-wrenching court battle in Holland to gain access to her 12-year-old son, whom she alleges was kidnapped as a baby then adopted by an unsuspecting Dutch couple.

Nagarani Kathirvel’s nightmare began in 1999 on a hot October night in the coastal city of Chennai, when she and her husband decided to sleep outside their slum hut with their three young children to keep cool.

She was awoken by an uneasy maternal instinct that something was wrong. There was no electricity and in the pitch black she could feel that her youngest child, 18-month-old Sateesh, had disappeared from the sleeping mat.

The family searched frantically for the baby, hoping he had simply crawled off. But Sateesh could not be found. For years Kathirvel kept her son’s name on the family ration card, believing that one day he would return.

Then in May 2005, there was a breakthrough: the local police busted a child-trafficking ring linked to an adoption agency, Malaysian Social Services, that had a licence to offer children for adoption abroad.

In the course of their investigation, the police discovered photographs of Chennai children who had been kidnapped. They contacted Kathirvel and she identified one as her son, allowing the authorities to trace him to the Netherlands.

India’s Central Bureau for Investigation took up the case, as did Against Child Trafficking (ACT), an organisation registered in Holland. It is feared there may be several similar stories, as Malaysian Social Services arranged more than 350 overseas adoptions.

Arun Dohle, a German working for ACT, broke the news to Sateesh’s adoptive Dutch parents that the child they thought they had adopted legally 11 years ago may have been stolen from his family.

“They were immediately receptive to the idea of contact with the biological parents and they were very upset with the adoption agency,” he said.

Sateesh is now called Rohit Shivam, and had been enjoying a happy childhood in the town of Almere, after being adopted by the Bissesar family, ethnic Hindus with roots in the former Dutch colony of Suriname. They paid £13,700 for the adoption.

At first, the Bissesars were co-operative and sent a picture of the boy to his biological parents. But after advice from a Dutch adoption expert they became fearful that the child could be taken away, and refused to take a DNA test.

Rohit, who speaks only Dutch, is also afraid of being forced to return. An initial court hearing earlier this year concluded that: “The child is at the moment not prepared to co-operate with DNA testing ... He fears that his biological parents can claim him back at a certain point.”

Last week Kathirvel said that she was fighting for a DNA test and to at least have visiting rights and contact with her son. “I don’t feel any anger towards the Dutch couple,” she said. “But I would like him to know both sets of parents, and I want to tell him that his biological parents did everything to find him.”

Kathirvel is due in court in the Dutch town of Zwolle-Lelystad on June 15, where her lawyer, Esther Schoneveld, will argue for yearly visits and regular updates on the child’s development. Schoneveld said a reunion at this stage was unlikely.

“This is a very sad story and there will be no winners, no matter what the court decides,” she said. “It is tragic for everyone involved.”


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article7144837.ece

Statement from Against Child Trafficking concerning this case:

ACT (Against Child Trafficking) is helping parents of missing children who have been adopted by foreigners without the parents consent, to go to court and defy the odds of this child trade. Criminal cases must be brought to justice. In the mean time, the parents must be enabled to show to their children that no matter what obstacles, they never gave up on them and want to reconnect.

In this particular case, ACT has been assisting these parents for five years, together with Sujato Mody of the Chennai based Malarchi Women’s Resource Centre. ACT/Malarchi found them lawyers in India and in the Netherlands and now face the challenge of bringing them to the Netherlands to appear in court. The parents will be accompanied by Sujata Mody on their travel.

The adoption industry is rich and powerful and their victims are not in the same position. Please consider helping to empower these parents and to show that indeed together we can make a difference.

Thank You!
Roelie Post
Arun Dohle
http://againstchildtrafficking.org/PAP.html


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

Monday, May 17, 2010

MEDIA: CBI files case against Preet Mandir official

Time of India


PUNE: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has registered a case against a managing trustee of city-based Preet Mandir and some state government officials for their alleged involvement in an 'inter-country adoption racket'.

However, a spokesperson of the NGO has strongly refuted the charges and has argued that the CBI in its earlier two probe reports in the same matter had given a clean chit to their managing trustee.

In an official mail to TOI on Monday, a CBI spokesperson has stated that the case was registered on the directions of the Bombay high court. It is an outcome of a criminal writ petition (no. 1945/2006) filed in the HC by Advait Foundation, an NGO, and another writ petition (no. 494/2007) filed by Sakhee, also an NGO, the CBI spokesperson said.

"It is alleged that during the period 2002 to 2010, the managing trustee of the Pune-based foundation entered into a criminal conspiracy with unknown persons and kidnapped the children of poor people in Maharashtra with a motive to send them in inter-country adoption to extort huge money from the adopting parents," the CBI spokesperson said.

The CBI spokesperson has said that the managing trustee was also involved in illegal trafficking of children and, for this purpose, he opened a rehabilitation centre at Kanhe Phata. "The managing trustee further obtained the Indian rejection slips from Indian parents fraudulently and forged these rejection slips with a motive to use them to send children for inter-country adoption. He also extorted money from Indian parents for adoption in the form of donation whereas there is a prescribed amount up to Rs 25,200, which can be claimed," the CBI spokesperson said.

"A total of 70 instances were detected between 2005 and 2010 in which he charged excess money more than Rs 50,000 from adopting parents. He also misappropriated the orphanage fund, to the tune of Rs 25,70,016, for own use during the period 2002-2007 by using his personal credit card. The unknown officials of the state government are also in connivance with the managing trustee, who managed to traffic children to the location of his foundation in Pune, avoiding the existing rules with ulterior motives. Investigation is continuing," the CBI spokesperson said.

The spokesperson of Preet Mandir told TOI: "There was no kidnapping of children who were adopted through a judicial process. Also, they were given in for adoption after completing all the legal formalities and after obtaining orders from family court as well as from the district court. Not a single case of kidnapping has happened as alleged by the CBI".

"Earlier, too, the CBI had probed these allegations against us and it had twice given us a clean chit. Even an independent inquiry committee appointed by the state government and the another by the Union government had given a clean chit to Preet Mandir. However, the CBI had requested the high court for further investigations and the court had asked them to submit their findings before it on May 20," the Preet Mandir spokesperson said.


http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/pune/CBI-files-case-against-Preet-Mandir-official/articleshow/5942948.cms

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

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

MEDIA: CARA Asks Preet Mandir to Close

Put up for adoption, but future uncertain

Nisha Nambiar Posted: Friday , Apr 09, 2010 at 0313 hrs, Pune


CARA asks Preet Mandir to discontinue inter-country adoption; agency puts forth petitions of 25 children

As many as 25 children put up for inter-country adoption in the past two months by city-based adoption centre Preet Mandir are facing an uncertain future. The Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA) had, in a letter dated March 11, told the adoption centre to discontinue its inter-country adoption proceedings from February 15.

However, Preet Mandir claims it received the letter only by April and the papers of the 25 children had been moved by then. The CARA, an autonomous body under the Ministry of Women and Child Development, had also asked Preet Mandir not to seek any foreign placement for its children till it gets a clean chit from the CBI or the Bombay High Court.

Preet Mandir had filed 16 petitions of in-country adoptions and 25 inter-country adoptions during these months. “These 25 kids have been cleared for foreign adoption but they may not finally get to be adopted as per this notification. All these children will face problems,” said Suhas Deshpande, liaisoning officer, Preet Mandir.


http://www.indianexpress.com/news/putupforadoption-butfutureuncertain/602272/


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

Friday, November 27, 2009

PEAR Questions to US Department of State

PEAR has asked the following questions to Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Janice L. Jacobs during the Ask the State Department Celebrate National Adoption Month open questioning period that ends November 30. The State Department will be selecting questions and answering them on their website in December.

1. How can China be considered "Hague-compliant" with open trafficking rampant enough for their government to set up a website to find the parents for trafficked children who have been recovered amid reports that the CW Centers themselves routinely offer hundreds of dollars to Mother's willing to sell their children?

2. How can India be considered “Hague-compliant” when their own laws state CARA may charge ONLY $3000 total in foreign adoption fees yet there is not a single agency in the world that pays them that? In reality no agency can get Cara approval to operate in India without agreeing to donate thousands of dollars for both services and "humanitarian aid” programs.

3. Given the facts that JCICS is a financial supporter of COA, adoption service providers sit on COA's board of directors, and the accreditation process and review is not transparent, how can we have confidence in COA's ability to make unbiased decisions to accredit agencies? Despite numerous promises to do so, neither COA nor DOS have provided publicly accessible disclosure of agencies with pending applications. Why is this?

4. To date, adoptive parents, adoption service providers and adoption advocacy and reform groups have filed numerous complaints against Hague accredited agencies, some dating back over a year yet, according to a recent quote by Richard Klarberg, none of the complaints leading to investigations have been resolved. Is DOS planning on providing assistance to COA in completing these investigations in a timely manner and disclosing the outcomes to the public? What about cases where COA is unable to investigate allegations of Hague violations in foreign countries? Will DOS be providing assistance?

5. Why is the US continuing to allow adoptions from non-Hague countries and are there any plans to demand Hague compliance in the foreseeable future?

6. Will the US be one of the four pilot countries when Guatemala re-opens?









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

Friday, September 11, 2009

MEDIA: CBI to Issue Additional Information on Preet Mandir Investigation

The Time of India has published an article announcing that the CBI will be continuing its investigation of Preet Mandir in Pune and will issue additional reports concerning their findings. The original CBI investigative reports found no irregularities with adoptions from Preet Mandir despite numerous complaints. The full article can be found here: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/news/city/mumbai/CBI-to-submit-another-report
-on-adoption-centre/articleshow/4996818.cms









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

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

PEAR Winter Newsletter, March 2009



Winter Newsletter, March 2009

From the Board

We are pleased to formally introduce our two newest Board members, Pamela Veazie and Kim Kennedy.

Pamela Veazie joins the board as both our Membership and Post Adoption Services and Support Chairs. Pam believes that adoption preparation for prospective parents and post-adoption support for health issues is completely inadequate. The lack of insurance coverage for many therapies and lack of affordable educational remediation that targets language loss are two issues not being addressed. Additionally, Pam feels there needs to be a clear, holistic multiyear pathway of healthcare steps to heal internationally adopted children. Pamela is currently a stay-at-home mother of three children. Her youngest was internationally adopted from Moldova in 2005 at the age of two and a half. She has a Doctor of Pharmacy degree from Purdue University in 1994. Her professional experience includes clinical research and project management of women’s health products at a large pharmaceutical company and development of training materials for clinical research professionals, doctors and nurses. Over the past four years, Pam has become owner of two online adoption support groups and moderator for three others.

Kim Kennedy joins the board as a general member. She comes to PEAR with many years of experience as an advocate for adoption reform. She and her husband have adopted internationally and know both the joys of successful adoption and the tragedy of adoption scams. They have a special interest in open adoptions and adopting children with special needs and are particularly concerned about the lack of regulation for adoption service providers as well as the illegal procurement of children for adoption. Kim has an undergraduate degree in Psychology and Sociology from Hope College and a Master's degree in Urban Planning from the University of Michigan. Prior to becoming a stay-at-home mom she taught middle school and worked in community development. Kim has volunteered with non-profit organizations dedicated to improving adoption practices, spoken publicly on ethics in adoption, written for Adoptive Families magazine, facilitated adoption support groups, and volunteered with her local foster care agency.

New Search Engine on PEAR Website


We are pleased to announced the creation of PEAR's Adoption Ethics, Corruption and Reform Search Engine located on our website. PEAR board member Karen Holt has been busy uploading, indexing and updating this search feature to help the adoption community in researching these issues. Our search engine can be accessed by visiting our website: www.pear-now.org. It is located in the upper right-hand side of the webpage.

Adoption Agency Licensure, Regulation, and Oversight Project

PEAR is currently in Phase I of a study on the licensing, regulation and oversight of adoption agencies. The purposes of this study will be to better educate prospective adoptive parents, expectant mothers and the general public on the role of adoption agencies, to ensure best practices in adoption, to find appropriate avenues for resolving conflicts among agencies and clients, and to establish the groundwork for a model system that adequately protects the entire triad. In Phase I, we are researching the current laws and regulations governing adoption agencies with the assistance of the Miller Center for Public Interest Advocacy at the Penn State Dickinson School of Law. PEAR is indebted to Ms. Lynn Long and Ms. Karen Wilson, both second year law students at Dickinson, for conducting the research into statutory and regulatory state law. We are hoping to complete this phase of the study in early May 2009.

Phase II will explore current systems for resolving conflict, making formal complaints and overseeing the work of adoption agencies. Phase III will analyze the efficacy of the current system, and propose improvements that will better protect the adoption triad. For further information on this project, please contact Gina Pollock: rmprhp @ yahoo.com.

Post Adoption Services Project


PEAR is pleased to announce that our Post-Adoption Service Project is underway. The first phase of this project is our Observational Survey of Adoptive Parents on Success, Satisfaction and Types of Post-Adoption Services. The survey is currently available through a link on our website: www.pear-now.org. To date, we have received responses from over 300 adoptive families.

This project has three main goals: to identify Post-Adoption support that PEAR can provide to fill in the gaps that currently exist, to lay the groundwork for a joint clinical, randomized study with a larger, well-established adoptive parent organization, and to demonstrate PEAR's commitment as an organization dedicated to wholly supporting adoptive parents. Our hope is that this project will lead PEAR to work with other organizations to provide a comprehensive “healing roadmap” for adopted children and their families. For further information on this this project, please contact Pamela Veazie: PharmGirl13 @ indy.rr.com

Call to Action Vietnam

In November 2007, PEAR launched the Call to Action: Vietnam in response to increasing concerns within the adoption community over the ethical problems surrounding adoptions from Vietnam. Throughout the following year, PEAR has offered support and resources to families with children adopted from Vietnam who are facing the difficult realization that their adoptions may have been corrupted. We also continued to monitor the situation and have offered our perspective to the JCICS, and our government officials in Washington and Hanoi. For further information on Call to Action: Vietnam, please contact Karen Moline or Margaret Weeks at reform @ pear-now.org

Hague Issues

PEAR continues to monitor the transition to the Hague Process by following developments in agencies and approve persons, the applicant process, and the handling of complaints against Hague accredited agencies. Of particular concern are the current practices of umbrellaing, mergers, and employee/board sharing by Hague and non-Hague accredited agencies.

On March 6, 2009, three board members and two regular members of PEAR will travel to New York to attend the New York Law School's Sixth Annual Adoption Policy Conference cosponsored by the Center on Adoption Policy. The focus of the conference is International Adoption, the United States, and the Reality of the Hague System. PEAR highly recommends that triad members participate in this conference and lend voice to a process which we believe discounts the voice and experience of triad in matters of policy creation, attendance is free. Further information can be found at: www.nyls.edu/adoption.

For additional Information on our Hague related activities, please contact us at pearadopt@ yahoo.com

Adoptee Access to Records

PEAR continues in its work to support the right of all adoptees to full and complete access to their birth information. We recently joined forces with Cal Open to support legislation allowing unconditional access by adult adoptees to their original birth certificate in California. Our official Policy Statement on Open Records will be published this month. For further information on PEAR's work in support of Adoptee Access to Records, please contact us at pearadopt@yahoo.com

Adoptive Parents Bill of Rights and Prospective Adoptive Parents Bill of Rights

PEAR has been busy refining versions of a Prospective Adoptive Parent Bill of Rights and an Adoptive Parent Bill of Rights which respect the rights of adoptive parents, families of origin and adoptees and ensures best practices in adoption and post adoption services. Our Prospective Adoptive Parent Bill of Rights is near completion and our Adoptive Parent Rights is in committee for a redraft. For further information on these projects, please contact Kim Kennedy at pearadopt @ yahoo.com

Coming Soon...


International Adoption Statements
PEAR has been closely monitoring international adoptions for many countries. We are very concerned with information and reports coming from adopting families, adoptees, the US Department of State, and local media concerning adoptions from India, Nepal, Ethiopia and China. We will continue to closely monitor these country programs and hope to publish formal statements on our findings and concerns in late March/early April 2009.

In the Spotlight

Tidbits of information, resources and articles worth pursuing in the fight for ethical adoptions:

Focus on Children - 5 Defendants Sentenced on February 24, 2009.
~PEAR would like to express our profound disappointment in the sentencing of the owners and operators of the Focus on Children adoption agency. We believe the U.S. government had a real opportunity for justice in this case, but that justice was not served. Our government could have sent a powerful message to the adoption community that procuring children for adoption, misleading families of origin and lying to adoptive families is wrong and will be punished. Unfortunately, we do not believe the sentence given was proportionate to crimes committed. Five years probation is nothing compared to the lifelong effects all members of the triad will experience. Our sincere sympathies go out to all of the families, both in Samoa and the U.S. and we commend the families who chose to speak out about their experiences. Our organization will continue to advocate for improvement of regulations and enforcement of laws that promote sound ethical adoption practices. We hope for a day when all parents who seek to adopt can trust their agencies to place children honestly, ethically and legally. During the month of March, we will be offering FOC Samoa clients the opportunity to express their perspective and feelings about the issues they face on our blog. FOC clients interested in participating may contact Gina Pollock at rmprhp @ yahoo.com

Ethica’s Webinar Series:
PEAR is pleased to support Ethica’s first webinar series for prospective adoptive families. The webinars will explore issues surrounding adoption fraud, how to choose an agency, and the implications of adopting from a "Hague" country. Upcoming webinars include: Webinar 2: March 18, 7-8:30PM EST "From Good Samaritans to Convicts - How to Choose an Ethical International Adoption Agency" and Webinar 3: April 8, 7-8:30PM EST "The Hague Convention 1 Year Later: Successes and Drawbacks" Space is limited so please register early. For more information, visit Ethica at www.ethicanet.org

PEAR is a 501(3)(3) non-profit corporation registered in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. All of our services and resources are offered free of charge and are prepared, maintained, and updated by an all volunteer board and staff. We hope that you will consider assisting PEAR’s activities and goals by making a donation or becoming a member. For more information on how to do this, please visit our website: www.pear-now.org.

Gina Pollock
President
Parents for Ethical Adoption Reform
Make a Difference - Join PEAR Now!
www.pear-now.org
526 N President Ave
Lancaster PA 17603
reform@pear-now.org

BE the change you want to see in the world. - Gandhi