[sak9645]

I did not say that independent adoption should not be allowed.

What I said, quite clearly, was that the RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT initially told the American government that it was instituting accreditation because it was moving towards a time when only accredited agencies would be allowed to place children, and when independent and facilitated adoptions would not be allowed. The Russian government was considering ratification of Hague Convention #33 on international adoption, and this was one of the steps it was taking to prepare for ratification.

I made this point because a statement on the Russian Ministry's website was being misinterpreted by one poster, who is a facilitator. The statement's reference to adoption paperwork that would not be accepted for a period of two years was being interpreted as meaning that the Russian government was not accepting parents' applications to adopt, if they were sent by agencies. In fact, what the Ministry was saying was that the Russian government was not accepting any more agencies' applications to be accredited for a period of two years. Parents were still allowed to adopt from Russia through agencies, both accredited and non-accredited.

In fact, Russia never really carried through with its plans to eliminate independent and facilitator-assisted adoptions, or to create a system with no regional variation in adoption procedures. Many people have pursued adoption through non-accredited agencies and independently, as well as through accredited agencies, since the statement was published.

All that being said, I do worry about people who do independent or facilitator assisted adoptions, if they do not know a country's language, laws, and customs; if they do not have longstanding ties to reputable people in the country; if they do not fully understand the U.S. INS requirements; and if they have little knowledge of medical issues in adopted children. Having previously served as the head of an organization that advocates for ethical adoption, I have seen too many families who have wound up with broken hearts and empty pockets, because of failed independent adoptions in many countries, but especially in Eastern Europe.

I remember well a crisis call from an American family in Moscow. The parents had actually managed to adopt a child independently, and were very happy with the child. Unfortunately, they were not being allowed to bring the child to the U.S. because they had selected a child who did not qualify as an eligible orphan under the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act; they were faced with the prospect of having to live overseas for two years with the child if they wanted to get a visa, since they could not be granted an adoption visa. The Russian people who had helped them facilitate the adoption were unaware of U.S. government requirements.

I had a similar call from a family who had been living in Brazil and who had adopted two children independently there, so this is not just a Russian issue. Newly transferred back to the U.S., the parents found that they could not get adoption visas for their children; the father was absolutely screaming on the phone. There was nothing I could do for these families, except to suggest that they talk to their Congressional representatives, to see if some sort of humanitarian parole might be arranged.

I also remember an article by Dr. Jerri Jenista. Dr. Jenista is one of the founders of the specialty of adoption medicine. She spoke against the "choose your own child" policies of some countries, and in favor of using American agency professionals who are well informed about the risks of international adoption and who use sound social work principles in matching a child with a parent who can meet his/her needs. She has spent years seeing families who were not given information on the medical risks and who chose beautiful children who just happened to have obvious signs of fetal alcohol syndrome, reactive attachment syndrome, cerebral palsy, and other fairly serious conditions.

Dr. Jenista pointed out that parents adopting independently often do not know what to look for when they meet a child, do not know how to read foreign medical reports (which often use terms that are not used by American doctors), do not understand the language well enough to know what an orphanage worker is saying -- and not saying, and so on. The average foreign facilitator does not know conditions in the U.S. well -- what can be cured, what can't, what resources exist in particular communities; does not often have social work training and cannot counsel families appropriately; and does not have any accountability if things go wrong and a new home must be found for a child.

While there are certainly disreputable American agencies, Dr. Jenista has spent years speaking before groups of American adoption agency professionals, educating them on the risks, warning them about the liability inherent in promising families healthy infants, urging them to think about issues such as disruption, and so on. I have heard her speak several times; she pulls no punches with agencies. Have many of the facilitators heard her speak or read her articles? Have many of them helped to find new homes for children when the adoptions they facilitated had to be dissolved?

In addition, I remember anguished calls and e-mails from families, asking what they could do because they were ripped off in the adoption process. Yes, some of these callers were talking about agencies. I talked to these callers about contacting licensing authorities, the Better Business Bureau, and so on. Some of these families talked about lawsuits; although this is a very expensive option, a lawsuit IS possible when an agency is licensed in this country.

Unfortunately, far more of the calls and e-mails were about foreign and U.S. facilitators. There were the facilitators that sent prospective parents on expensive trips overseas, promising to show them healthy infants -- and then telling them, upon their arrival, that only kids over 5 years of age would be available. There were the facilitators who led them to supposedly healthy children who were clearly near death or who had severe disabilities. There were the facilitators who did not tell a family that even the healthiest older child might be a challenge, and that a particular older child had been the victim of sexual and physical abuse and would likely require years of therapy. There were the facilitators who advertised themselves as lawyers, but who turned out to be disbarred or otherwise disgraced in their own country. And there were the facilitators who promised the same child to more than one set of parents, ultimately giving him/her to the parent who paid the most. Very little, unfortunately, could be done for most parents victimized in this way. Some of their stories can be read on the Internet; they do a great service to other families by telling their horror stories, but they don't get any compensation for their financial and personal loss.

Someone wrote that the U.S. agencies use "brokers or mafia reps" within Russia because they really DON'T know the Russian court system. I'm sure that some less experienced agencies have inadvertently hired people who are disreputable for in-country services; hopefully, they have learned a valuable lesson about choosing and supervising employees and contractors. However, I must say that the accredited agencies I know have appropriately trained and supervised people in country, and have lots of experience with the Russian court system in the specific areas where they work.

Don't get me wrong. Some independent adoptions work out fine. But they are high risk for people who do not have a sophisticated knowledge of international adoption, and that must be recognized. People who do not have that knowledge may be far better off using a licensed agency that has been checked out thoroughly. Yes, on paper the costs may be greater. However, the risk of coming home broke and without a baby is almost certainly less.