On Wednesday, March 7, 2012, we reported that Huminska's Anioly had their accreditation suspended for 30 days (see:
http://pear-now.blogspot.com/2012/03/huminskas-anioly-faces-30-day.html)
Today we received the following report from COA concerning the basis for the suspension:
The complaint on which this suspension is based was filed in November 2010.
Nature of the Substantiated Violations:
96.35(a) & 96.44(a) - The agency provided a referral to a family prior to the family’s completion of the homestudy and receipt of approval of its 1800 A application from US Citizenship and Immigration Services, failing to take into consideration the best interests and safety of the child.
96.42(c) - Confidential information about a prospective adoptive parent’s children was released without the prospective adoptive parent’s written authorization.
96.40(a) - The written fee information provided did not provide a clear breakdown of fees regarding expected total fees and estimated expenses and an explanation of the conditions under which fees or expenses may be charged, waived, reduced, or refunded and of when and how the fees and expenses must be paid.
96.40(b)(1-7) & 96.40(c)(1-2) - The written fee information provided did not conform to the categories and details defined in the standards.
96.40(g) - The agency charged additional foreseeable fees beyond what was disclosed in the adoption contract.
96.35(a) - The agency requested and received payment from a prospective adoptive family for an activity unrelated to their adoption which it planned to deduct from their legitimate adoption fees. I'm wondering if this is too specific.
96.49(a) & 96.49(b) - The agency failed to provide a prospective adoptive family their referred children’s medical records.
96.49(d)(2-4) - The information contained in the agency’s records did not demonstrate that the agency employed reasonable efforts on behalf of the family to obtain medical information and information that was provided did not fully address the standards.
96.49(f)(1)(2) - The information contained in the agency’s records did not demonstrate that the agency
employed reasonable efforts on behalf of the family to obtain social information and information that was provided did not fully address the standards.
96.49(g) - The agency failed to document in the record the efforts made to obtain medical and social information and why it was not obtainable.
96.49(k) - A prospective adoptive family was not given two weeks to consider the needs of the children that were referred to them and their ability to meet those needs.
Status of the Adverse Action: Huminska’s Anioly’s Hague Approval is suspended from March 6, 2012 through April 5, 2012 or until such later date when corrective action is complete.
A copy of this report should be available today at COA's website:
http://www.coanet.org/front3/page.cfm?sect=54&cont=4439
Ethics, Transparency, Support
~ What All Adoptions Deserve.
http://www.pear-now.org/
