A C Menu
AFAA Main Startup
Index Page - AFAA
Text Home Page - Table
of Contents - AFAA
Contacts Page
Personal views by Andrew Gibbons
June 1999
From Russia with Love
First hand accounts of intercountry adoption experiences are often fascinating, and the story told by Matthew Engel in The Guardian on 29 May 1999 is no exception. Elements will be familiar to many adopters accustomed to swapping war-stories at AFAA gatherings: dealing with unsympathetic, prejudiced or merely inefficient professionals in the UK, the emotional switchback as specific adoption prospects flower and then wilt overnight, and the desperate and sometimes heady struggle to work through a complex legal procedure in an alien culture while on emotional overdrive. In writing this article about adopting his Russian daughter, Matthew Engel may have thought that his experiences were exceptional, but some AFAA members have faced longer waits, worse officials, higher costs, and more. While views will differ over whether the present system is in fact ‘ludicrous’ and ‘absurdly complex’, things as he points out may be about to change as a result of new legislation, and it is not at all clear how far this will deliver a more user-friendly environment for UK intercountry adopters. Whatever your views, read for yourself this story with a happy ending. If you want a plain-spoken account of the impact this article had on readers, see Matthew Engel’s postscript in The Guardian on 15 June 1999.
The Bill: PC Plod goes to Parliament
The main monument to emerge from Mark Oaten’s hitherto brief parliamentary career could turn out to be the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Bill which may soon become law. His role in this legislation is probably little more than circumstantial, as the Bill itself is clearly a Department of Health product, being a legal draftsman’s delight of amendments to scattered clauses of previous Acts, almost incomprehensible to the layman - and possibly to the well-meaning Mr. Oaten too. The principal map through these uncharted waters takes the form of Explanatory Notes "prepared by the Department of Health with the consent of Mr Mark Oaten". Not all intercountry adopters will be reassured that this is the best or most impartial navigational aid for the great ship of State through such stormy seas. As is often the case with Acts of Parliament, the impacts may result not just from what the law says, but from what the regulations which it spawns will say and how they are applied.
The summary tells us that the Bill amends the Adoption Act 1976 and the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978 in respect of intercountry adoption (and, it emerges later, several others besides); it enables the UK to ratify the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (which is arguably a Good Thing); and it introduces sanctions to deal with unacceptable practices in intercountry adoption.
The Bill apparently provides that adoption orders made under the Hague Convention in any signatory country will be recognised by the UK, while orders made in ‘designated’ countries will also, as now, continue to be recognised although there will be ‘revision’ of the list of such countries. There will be three central authorities in England, Wales and Scotland which will be responsible for the operation of the Convention and the appointment of approved adoption agencies as Accredited Bodies to "carry out work under the Convention". The result will "ensure" that both local authorities and approved adoption agencies "may" provide prospective adopters with intercountry adoption services. However, all currently approved adoption societies will be automatically accredited, and local authorities don’t require accreditation. So it doesn’t sound as though the UK’s current adoption agencies need fear that the central authorities will exercise any watchdog type powers over them as a result of this Bill. Potential new entrants to the current cosy cartel could find it a bit harder, as the Bill doesn’t cover the precise terms by which newcomer organisations might become accredited.
Birth parents’ consent becomes solely the responsibility of the competent authorities in the country of origin. The UK authorities seem to be taking a bold step in delegating this and other powers to foreign jurisdictions, and it will be interesting to watch how it works in practice. Will any get-outs have to be invoked to avoid recognising adoptions from any signatory countries whose authorities turn out to be less than competent?
With the UK’s recognition of Convention adoptions by Britons travelling overseas, UK birth registers and presumably birth certificates will include the country in which the adoption order was made.
In principle, adoptions from Convention countries could turn out to be simpler than those currently from non-designated countries, as readoption in the UK won’t be necessary. The proof of the pudding will lie in how many adoption sending countries successfully ratify the Hague Convention.
Another development to watch will be what revisions are applied to the list of designated countries, and what criteria are invoked to justify any changes. For example, currently potential adopters may be less interested in whether or not a country is designated or non-designated, than in whether the foreign adoption authorities (which may or may not be at national level) require the costly and time-consuming official UK home studies which we all know and love. While most countries sending adopted children to the UK do require them, some American states don’t, which can make adoptions from those places much quicker and cheaper. In recent years the Department of Health has sought to persuade foreign courts only to accept officially recognised British home study reports, and the Bill makes clear that a home study for intercountry adoption must be prepared by or on behalf of a UK adoption agency. Since non-Convention countries (such as the USA?) are obviously at liberty to ignore UK home study requirements and to insist on their own instead, it would be useful to understand how the UK authorities would deal with this. One way might be for them to un-designate such a country, but that is effectively the nuclear option as it would completely prevent British couples adopting from there, and in the case of the United States at least could be contentious.
Anyone attempting to bring a child into the UK for the purposes of adoption who did not "comply with requirements to be prescribed by regulations" (classic phrase!) would be committing a criminal offence, unlike at present.
Altogether, this Bill is a significant landmark for UK intercountry adoptions, and its effects will span a generation or more. For the curious and those with time on their hands, the Bill and Explanatory Notes can be found easily under ‘Public Bills before Parliament’ at the House of Commons pages in the main government website at www.open.gov.uk .
Personal views by Andrew Gibbons.
Andrew Gibbons
chairman.afaa@pobox.comPlease note that views expressed in these articels are not necessarly those of the Editor or the Webmaster or of the AFAA Committee.
Patron: His Honor Michael Cook
Registered Charity Number 1003274
Last modified: 15 February, 2004