Meet my brother Aaron...for all intensive purposes we shall call him "Aron" !!! And it is also ok to yell out..."ARON, ARON, VENGA, VENGA"...when you want to call for him to come.
My brother is a MASSIVE pillar in my life. He has been the ONE stable thing in my world and for adoptive children, stability is crucial.
With no further to do...here is ARON! He is pictured below...
Aron just recently returned from Costa Rica. He spent 3 weeks there studying and learning to speak Spanish. My brother is a NYU grad. student pursuing a Masters Degree of Social Work. I have no doubt in my mind that my brother will make an incredible social worker. He is almost a year and a half into his program and doing great. I couldn't be more proud and excited...my brother is the most unique and caring individual I have ever met in my life.
While studying in Costa Rica, my brother learned a lot. Pictured below, you can see my brother interacting with some children but the program he was a part of was more about learning things himself...
My brother learned a whole bunch of stuff in Costa Rica, all of which I was eager to hear about. But there has been one thing that has really caught my eye.
Aron learned about the Hauge Convention. He taught me about it and I think you all should learn a little bit about it too! Check out the link below to find out more about how the Hauge protects intercountry adoptive children.
ALSO!!! My brother wrote a fantastic paper on the hauge and its details. I have posted the paper (with my brothers permission) below.
A Note from Aron
The Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-Operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption, to which the United States became a party on April 1, 2008, is a powerful international policy that has had rattling effects on all parties involved in international adoption. The convention endeavors to consolidate international policies, creating standards and accountability. This is not a small undertaking considering the involvement of over 70 countries. Additionally, the underlying issue of children needing care draws an emotional tie the convention, that is not conflict free. In this paper I will examine how and why the convention was created and outline its goals. Using several case studies from different countries I will also highlight some effects, negative and positive, of the Hague convention, on children, families and countries.
The Hague convention on intercountry adoption is one of over 30 conventions the Hague Conference on Private International Law has adopted (www.hcch.net). Other conventions adopted by the Hague Conference include the Conventions on the protection of minors and the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (www.hcch.net). The Hague Conference first convened in the Netherlands in 1893, aiming to “work for the progressive unification of the rules of private international law” (www.hcch.net). To achieve this goal, the conference negotiates and drafts multilateral treaties or conventions. Hague has established and maintains relationships with other international organizations, including the United Nations, UNICEF and the Committee on the Rights of the Child (www.hcch.net). These associations solidify the Hague Conference as an encompassing international group.
How do counties become involved with the Hague Conference? According to the Hague website, “States which have already participated in one or more of the earlier Sessions of the Conference may become Members of the Hague Conference by accepting its Statute. Other States must be admitted by vote,” a right executed by a majority of Member States (www.hcch.net). According to these rules, a state (country) can follow or be affected by a Hague Convention, but not be a Member of the Conference. India, for example, has participated in Hague Conventions, including Intercountry Adoption, for decades but only became a Member of the Conference in 2008 (www.hcch.net). While Hague seemingly aims to achieve cohesion, there is inevitable confusion and lack of conformity or universal participation by many countries. Still, as is the case with the Convention on Intercountry Adoption, Hague treaties affect these countries.
Beginning after World War II and up through the 1970’s, there was an international adoption boom, brining international babies into the U.S. (Summerhill, 2008). It wasn’t until 1993 that Hague responded to the international complexities and human and legal problems that this boom created. According to the Outline of the Intercountry Adoption, the 1993 Convention aims to make, “the rights and interests of the child paramount and to respect and protect the rights of the families of origin and adoptive families.” The “best interests of the child” is listed first in the principal features of the Convention. Furthermore, the Convention describes the “Subsidiary Principle”. This principle sates that a child “should be raised by his or her birth family or extended family whenever possible” (www.hcch.net). This idea, while it may have the child’s best interest at heart, may impede the adoption process, leaving children in institutional care. Or, it may prevent willing and suitable parents from adopting children in need.
Another operative of the Convention is to promote “Co-operation between States and within States” (www.hcch.net). This aspect of functioning is easier said than done for many states. States that already have the private sector involved in intercountry adoption may have complex bureaucratic systems already in place. Existing political or social relationships between states might also interfere with co-operation on an international agreement. If a relationship between two states changes, it affects other relationships involved in the Convention.
The Hague Convention also calls for “competent central authorities and accredited bodies” (www.hcch.net). While this aspect of Hague creates standards and accountability, is not an easy switch to implement. Confusion has been created with changing policies that are far more complex than older standards. Also, many agencies have had to face overhauls to comply with Hague standards.
The Hague Conference seems like a suitable agency, with its multi-lateral approach, to handle and effectively regulate intercountry adoption. However, different countries have different strengths and weaknesses. Developing countries have different needs and resources than established countries, yet they all must comply with a single convention and Hague places a heavy burden of responsibility on the states. Hague did consider this issue of diversity by implementing The Intercountry Adoption Technical Assistance Programme, which employs international consultants and experts dedicated to needy states. But what other needs, economic and social, do states in developing countries have, that Hague had not addressed? With the U.S. only fully adopting the current Convention in 2008, only time will reveal how effective Hague really is at unifying international policy and addressing individual countries needs.
To understand what intercountry adoption was like prior to Hague, I examined an article from Business Week, When It Come to Adoption, It’s a Wide, Wide World, published in 1988. The author, Suzanne Woolley describes concerns that are indicative of how different intercountry adoption was before it was regulated by Hague, “Rather than wait years for a U.S born infant parents are looking overseas…many adoptive parents can get babies a year after applying, less than half the average wait for a U.S. born baby.” Woolley also gives prospective parents a heads up that in some countries orphanages may “ask that you bring gifts, ranging from cloths to microwaves when you pick up your child.” Under current Hague regulations, both of these aspects of intercountry adoption are completely different. Intercountry adoption can take several years to complete with waitlists and much complex paperwork involved. Today, the presentation of gifts during the adoption process may be seen as payment or even coercion, both documented corrupt practices that Hague fights against.
So what is intercountry adoption like today, under brand new Hague regulations? In an article published in the New York Times in June, Mireya Navarro notes that experts have described the process as, “tortuous to pursue.” Navarro documents the process through the experience of the Casserlys, a family from Minnesota waiting to adopt a girl from Guatemala. Julie Casserly explains that her first adoption, in 2005, was easier than the current one, “this time it is a matter of ‘if’ not ‘when’.” Navarro lists child trafficking scandals and Hague as the reasons why countries such as China, Russia and South Korea are turning toward domestic adoptions instead, making international adoptions harder to complete for couples like the Casserlys. Guatemala is an extreme example of this difficulty in complying with standards. Although Guatemala signed the Convention treaty, they have not yet established federal control of adoption leading to a temporary moratorium on adoptions (Summerhill, 2008). Navarro also reports on another family from Minnesota who has been trying to adopt a Vietnamese child for 2 “gut wrenching” years. Vietnam stopped accepting adoption applications in 2008 after an investigation by the American embassy found that poor birth parents had been paid or deceived into placing their children in an orphanage (Navarro, 2008). The media is another hurdle, not related to Hague, that prospective adoptive parents face. Publicity surrounding celebrities like Madonna, who did not go through the proper process, leave people assuming that Americans are coming in and taking kids from their parents (Navarro, 2008). Because the Casserly's began the adoption process 11 months ago, prior to the U.S. implementation of the Hague Convention, it should theoretically not affect them. Nevertheless they fear the fate of the girl they wish to adopt if the process continues to be delayed or does is not completed.
Similar complications are described by Kirk Semple in, A World Away, New Rules Put an Adoption on Hold, published by the New York Times in 2008. Semple reports on the miraculous case of a Latvian immigrant, Ilze Earner, to the U.S. who was contacted by a social worker in 2005 and informed that a baby had been abandoned in Latvia who was linked to the immigrants U.S. phone number. The abandoned child was Earner’s 3rd cousin. Earner, an assistant professor at Hunter, decided to adopt the child, who is now 5 years old. Earner complied with all international adoption regulations current at the time. However, when she traveled to Latvia with her family to retrieve her adopted cousin, she was denied by American consular officials who told her that international adoption regulations had changed that that she would have to return to the U.S. to restart the process (Semple, 2008). The Earners were unaware of the changes and had not filed a document before April 1, 2008 that would have allowed them to adopt under old regulations. Semple deems the Hague Convention as the “crux of the Earner’s problem.” Only after much press coverage of the story and the Earner’s own lobbying to the Latvian and American governments, were they granted an expedited adoption (Semple, 2008). At the end of the article, a spokesman for the immigration agency admits, “Given the complexity of immigration law… policies are not simple, the omission of one piece of information can result in the wrong answer.” Since the ordeal, the Earner’s have switched to al licensed adoption agency, leaving a social worker they had originally contracted (Semple, 2008).
In, Doors closing on foreign adoptions; As China pulls back, families look to countries such as Vietnam and Ethiopia, published in the Toronto Star in 2008, Leslie Scrivener documents Chinas tightening adoption policies and the resulting effects on other countries. In the past China had a “golden standard” of adoption because of how it expedited healthy children through the adoptions process (Scrivener, 2008). The wait in Canada to adopt a baby from China has increased from approximately one year to between five and seven years (Scrivener, 2008). The effect this has is felt in countries like Vietnam, Ethiopia and South Africa, where international adoption has increased. Scrivener blames partially attributes this change to “increased compliance with the Hague Convention and its slew of mandated documentation… a burden in impoverished countries.” This phenomenon reflects how a powerful nation, like China, that has the ability to change their policies to suit their changing needs, effects other countries that may or may not be able to cope easily becoming intercountry adoption hot beds.
Ethiopia is an example of a country experiencing backlash due to an increase in adoptions. Jane Gross reports on Ethiopia’s current adoption system in, Surge in Adoptions Raises Concern in Ethiopia, published in the New York Times in 2007. Since 2000, Ethiopia has moved from 16th to 5th place in number of adoptions by Americans (Gross, 2007). Due to this popularity there has been an influx of new agencies to in Ethiopia to facilitate the growing number of adoptions. Gross quotes the Ministry of Women’s Affairs, which oversees adoption, as saying, “We don’t have the capacity to handle all these new agencies, and we have to monitor the quality, not just quantity.” The head of child protection at Unicef in Ethiopia has also voiced his concern with the growing number of private companies that are not properly regulated by the government (Gross, 2007). While Ethiopia may be a popular and effective alternative to countries that have tightened their adoption regulations, will they be able to maintain Hague standards amidst an international adoption surge?
The Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption is clearly well intentioned. As an organization, the Hague Conference has a history of experience with multi-lateral projects to protect human and specifically children’s rights. But is the Convention prepared to deal with potential bureaucratic pitfalls? How can such a large-scale endeavor cater to the needs of its many diverse constituents? How will the differing economic and political powers of the states involved in Hague balance out? In order to protect children and put their best interests first, Hague must face these questions and be prepared to modify if necessary. If there is too much red tape exists, even if it’s due to tightening procedures, perhaps children’s interests will be compromised. If a child’s adoption is put on hold and they spend time institutionalized, are their interests being met? I believe the Hague Convention is a very important step in combating atrocities like child trafficking. But the Conference must be prepared, and perhaps they are, to deal with the many effects of such a large and ambitious international policy.
Sources
Conners, W. & Gross, J. (2007, June 4). Surge in Adoptions Raises Concern in Ethiopia.
The New York Times.
The Hague Conference on Private International Law (2008). Outline of the Convention.
Retrieved on September 20, 2008, from www.hcch.net
The Hague Conference on Private International Law (2008). What is the Hague
Conference on Private International Law? Retrieved on September 20, 2008, from www.hcch.net
Navarro, M. (2008, June 5). To Adopt, Please Press Hold. The New York Times.
Semple, K. (2008, June 17). A World Away, New Rules Put an Adoption on Hold.
The New York Times.
Scrivener, L. (2008, September 13). Doors closing on foreign adoptions; As China pulls
back, families look to counties such as Vietnam and Ethiopia. The Toronto Star.
Summerhill, Laura (2008). Lecture, New York University.
Woolley, S (1988, June 20). When It Comes To Adoption, It’s A Wide, Wide World.
Business Week, p. 164
...thanks Aron. For the information and for being the best brother anyone could ever ask for :) And to all--- a goodnight! PEACE!!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment