A C Menu
AFAA Main Startup
Index Page - AFAA
Text Home Page - Table
of Contents - AFAA Contacts
Page
These articles on intercountry adoption topics in the UK were first published in the AFAA Newsletter, which is available to members. The information given was believed correct at the time the topical commentaries were written, but may since have been overtaken by changes in the law or other events. Please note that views expressed in these articels are not necessarly those of the Editor or the Webmaster or of the AFAA Committee.
Ups and Downs
Many in the adoption community will welcome the announcement from the Chinese Centre of Adoption Affairs that the recent restriction on the number of adoption applications has been removed. With the bureaucratic backlog overcome, a semblance of normality can return, at least until we know what will happen beyond November 2003. Single applicants, incidentally, are restricted to 8% of the total and must not be aged 50 or above, nor gay.
Rumours that Romania might reopen its door for intercountry adoption in the first quarter of 2003 have not come to anything. Meanwhile, with less than three months notice, Vietnam suspended UK adoptions from the start of the year. This will continue until a formal agreement is in place between the two countries, but since discussions did not appear to have started ahead of the ban, this could take some time. Even less notice was given for Thailand's ban which runs for the whole of 2003, apart from applications for special needs children.
These unpredictable changes all point to a key reform the UK Department of Health should be considering. The present need for potential adopters to commit to a specific country early in the home study process should be relaxed, as this is quite unnecessary. The current requirements make changing your target country very difficult. Given the vagaries of source countries, this can cause anguish and loss of time and money when documents have to be revised and panels re-applied to. Adoption preparation classes and the home study process almost never include any country-specific input: couples have to provide that for themselves. The process is aimed at reassuring the social worker and the adoption panel that applicants know what they are doing and have some grounding in the country concerned. So all the concerned parties should be much more flexible about country choice. As a minimum, there is no practical justification for requiring couples to commit to a specific country until the final stages of the home study.
Better Late...Before Christmas I reported the UK government's plans for the long-awaited final implementation of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. Regulations will be issued to define the Act, and supporting guidance will be published. These measures will thoroughly revise the framework for both domestic and inter-country adoption, completing the replacement of the 1976 Adoption Act.
A key aim is to speed up the process of moving the UK's many children in care into adoptive families. Another is to ensure that adoption leave and pay for inter-country adopters reflect domestic practice, with all adopters in employment being eligible for 26 weeks of paid leave and 26 weeks unpaid. There is also a duty on local authorities to provide adoption support services for all adopters, with £70 million of extra funds of over the next three years. Not least, there will be an independent review mechanism for prospective adopters who feel that they have been turned down unfairly.
The intention was for this new system to be up and running from April, but the Department of Health now thinks this is unachievable. The regulations and guidance are still scheduled for March, but the new services themselves will be introduced in October 2003, thus allowing councils to gear up appropriately and, as the DoH has it, "hit the ground running". After 26 years, perhaps another 6 months to get it right is worth the wait.
Little Sister?At what age should adopted children be told about their roots, and how is this best approached? This topic is keenly discussed at AFAA seminars in groups covering explaining and exploring adoption. The answers are always as unique as our children of course, and there is no formula that fits all families.
This question is of particular interest for adopters from China, who often have little background information on their children, and may be fortunate even to learn their birthplace. China adopter and academic Kay Johnson researched the circumstances of Chinese people who had abandoned their children. Her fieldwork covered 237 families, using a questionnaire and interviews. The main findings are that virtually all children abandoned came from married couples, that 90 per cent of them were female, and that 82 percent of these abandoned children have sisters. If this sample is in any way representative, then most children adopted from China will have older siblings left behind, and virtually all will have married birth parents.
These results, and their significance for adoptees, are discussed in the article by Beth O'Malley at www.rainbowkids.com/303foundfacts.htm. She takes the view that the best age to share this information with children is perhaps 9 or 10. Younger children will not understand the subtlety of "maybe" or "probably" having an older sister, while it is important to put these ideas across well before "the turbulence of adolescence". This material may help China adopters to reduce some of the uncertainty about the missing background of their children, and will also fuel debate about what to tell children and when.
Same Difference?
Where Now?
Many British potential inter-country adopters are wondering which countries they can turn to, following China’s introduction of restrictions on the number of adoption applications from the UK in December 2001. In recent years China has been by far the largest source of adoptions into the UK, and the current annual quota of 126 applications is based on half the number for the previous year, which leaves quite a gap to fill.Looking at American figures for the last few years, Russia would be the most obvious immediate alternative. South Korea and Guatemala are the next largest sources, with Romania, Ukraine, India, Vietnam and Cambodia all having become important contributors. For Britons, adopting from the USA can have advantages, although cost isn’t usually one of them. As China well illustrates, the reliability of a single country should never be taken for granted. Bureaucratic or political problems can all too easily interrupt the flow of adoptions, which can be distressing for those people caught in the crossfire. The world is an uncertain place, and inter-country adopters as always still need to do their research and networking and to hope for the best.(Personal views by Andrew Gibbons )
AFAA’s new email group has been set up so that members can collectively keep in touch by email.Each email sent by anyone in the group goes to all those who have subscribed as group members.This should be very useful for those who want to discuss issues with other members, to share news quickly (e.g. announcing a placement or a successful adoption, an imminent TV programme, or a proposed social trip), or to seek contacts or advice from other people in AFAA.
The system is free to use, apart from your own costs of emailing.You have to register, either by responding to an invitation received from the moderator, or by sending an email request to afaa-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.No personal information needs to be given apart from your name and email address.You can easily leave at any time.To safeguard confidentiality and to protect our privacy, only paid-up, individual AFAA members will be accepted.
The service is provided by YahooGroups, and there are some good behaviour terms and conditions to accept.These include the obvious undertakings not to advertise, not to use the group for purposes other than discussion of intercountry adoption related issues, and not to use abusive language.Material from the group should not be sent outside without the permission of whoever wrote it.
This should be an excellent means of building a deeper sense of community between inter-country adopters in AFAA.Do give the group a try you’ll hear from interesting people with all sorts of adoption experience!
* Keeping in Touch * Act of Faith
The Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 may have looked like a good idea at the time, but as we approach 2002 most of the regulations which are essential to its functioning have yet to be finalised.A consultation/draft version of the regulations and guidance has been published in November 2001 (Draft Regulations and Guidance for England and Wales, Department of Health), so that interested parties can comment.This is in fact an immensely useful document, and anyone planning an intercountry adoption should read it carefully, as it is the best indication of the arrangements that will apply once the regulations are finally implemented.
Once the regulations are law, this will allow the UK to ratify the 1993 Hague Convention on protection of children and cooperation in respect of intercountry adoption.The draft Guidance explains in detail how adoptions from Convention countries and from others will be handled.Adoptions between Convention countries should become more routine in nature - but not necessarily cheaper.Many countries ratified the Convention in the mid-1990s, but although the UK and the USA both signed the Convention in 1994 and China signed in November 2000, none of these three has yet ratified it.Bets may be laid on whether the UK will achieve its stated deadline of ratifying the Convention in Spring 2002 with implementation three months later.
The present arrangement whereby adoptions in ‘designated countries’ are recognised under UK law will still hold.So in future there will be Convention adoptions, designated country adoptions, and non-Convention, non-designated country adoptions (Got that?).But the scope for adopting from a designated country in order to avoid incurring the delay and financial cost of a UK home study is limited.The guidance says it is only in cases where a British citizen is resident abroad or is living and working abroad and is able to adopt under the law of that country that the Department of Health has no authority in the matter.Nevertheless, some British expatriates in designated countries may find it simpler, quicker or cheaper to adopt where they are, provided the local requirements don’t entail a UK home study.
Many other intercountry adoption issues are covered in the Guidance.For example, the document notes that UK agencies will continue to be able to charge ‘reasonable fees and expenses’ (but no VAT) for their services, and that these are currently ‘in the region of £4,000 per assessment’.Information on the vital matter of entry clearance still seems to be split between three UK government departments (Health, Home Office and the Foreign & Commonwealth Office).And fittingly, there is a short section on arrangements for the adoption of UK children to overseas countries.
Comments on the consultation document should be sent to the Department of Health by 13 February 2002.To get a copy from the DoH or if checking their website, quote the circular number LASSL(2001)11.
* Keeping in Touch * Act of Faith
Andrew Gibbons
Personal views by Andrew Gibbons
May 2000
Hot Seat
This note comes from the slightly different worldview of Chairman, as I have recently accepted this position. To launch things, the first option, which is highly relevant and a great pleasure in this case, is to thank ones predecessor for their earlier efforts.
Pat Wordley has been chairman of AFAA since 1994, well before the relaunch and the name change from STORK. She has given a great lead and helped to build AFAA's reputation and influence into something much larger than could be expected from the size of our membership. Her work has greatly contributed to achieving AFAA’s aim: to help our adopted children grow up happy and well adjusted, proud of their birth country and well integrated into their country of adoption. I'm very grateful that Pat will be continuing with some of her previous activities, working on the Committee and representing AFAA in the wider world, and taking the title of External Coordinator. A big Thank You for all her past efforts and current commitment.
The Inspector Calls
The Guardian's front page story on 10 April 2000, headlined "Blair to help parents adopt", touted possible UK government action on a raft of new initiatives for domestic adoption, the most noteworthy of which would be a national register to link eligible children and potential adopters. Besides forecasting a "report on adoption" by the influential Cabinet Office Performance and Innovation Unit [now available at http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/innovation/2000/Adoption/adindex.htm], the article was related to a Department of Health press release entitled More Work Needed to Overturn Barriers to Adoption which appeared on the same day. The press release promotes a report from the Social Services Inspectorate (circular CI(2000)7, available on the Department of Health website) about how local authority social services are implementing the 1998 action plan called Adoption - Achieving the Right Balance. The conclusion is that many councils are performing well, but the overall quality of adoption services is too variable to be acceptable.
Besides citing the need for better planning and management of adoption services, better training of staff and better information, the report highlights the variable and sometimes poor treatment of potential adopters, notably the time taken to process applications and complete preparation courses. Although not suggested by the report, the most obvious tactic in such circumstances would be naming and shaming.
Most interestingly for AFAA members, the report gives some modest but useful facts about intercountry adoption. Requests to assess potential intercountry adopters run at about 600 per year. Over half of social services departments do ICA assessments in-house, while a quarter had contracted them out to other adoption agencies.
The evidence on local authorities’ performance in adoption services is mixed, and many couples will have suffered as a result of the bad cases. But there is some comfort to be found in the government's desire to move adoption from a Cinderella service into the mainstream, and in the Inspectorate's promise of a survey of adoption services to report "in the summer". With the PIU report also in the works, the performance of those in UK adoption services seems likely to continue in the spotlight for some time to come.
Reporting Restrictions
Elsewhere, standards of individual and official behaviour are not always the best, especially in low income countries during or after periods of war or disruption. It is in the interests of all of us that intercountry adopters should do everything in their power to ensure that any adoption processes in which they are involved follow the best possible practice. Couples choosing a country to adopt from should always be alert to the conditions prevailing on the ground.
So it was alarming to read about a recent UN report on one country citing "large-scale trafficking of babies and young children for adoption abroad" which was mentioned in the Financial Times on 8 May 2000. "A special rapporteur on children's rights found that lawyers had created an organised system of obtaining children. They are either bought from poor or surrogate mothers or stolen by hospital staff and their deaths faked."
In that country, "legal adoption appears to be the exception rather than the rule", says the rapporteur, and "The state colludes in the process". "People are involved in it at the highest levels of power within the state", another informant is quoted as saying.
It is important not to let some evidence of foul practice taint a whole movement, or worse, a whole generation. Potential adopters owe it to themselves, to their children to be and to other adoptive families to ensure that these misdeeds are not continued. DNA checks can provide some safeguards, but a piece of paper is only as reliable as the conditions under which it was issued, as Neville Chamberlain discovered.
My advice to potential adopters with any misgivings would be to commit the extra time and money needed to visit your source country first, and talk to the lawyers, the other adopters in the hotels, to the orphanages, to any independent foreign workers, and get all their views. If things feel sound, then you'll have bought the reassurance cheaply. If not, you should swallow hard and look for another country.
Andrew Gibbons
chairman.afaa@pobox.com
Personal views by Andrew Gibbons
November 1999
The Law and the Profits
The Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Act 1999 is now on the UK statute books. The all-important regulations and guidance, which will govern how the Act actually works, will be available for public consultation [in 2001], and laid before Parliament for approval [sometime later].
Many couples starting out on the road to intercountry adoption turn first to the social services department of their local authority to commission a home study report. Indeed, the UK Government’s 1998 Circular says that all LAs should ensure that arrangements are in place for home studies to be carried out. More recently, the Government has said that it wants prospective inter country adopters to have a choice about whom they may approach to be assessed. This is starting to sound promising. One welcome effect of the Act, when it is fully in force, is that voluntary adoption agencies will be able to provide an intercountry adoption service independently of local authorities.
All local authority social services departments automatically qualify to be able to undertake ICA home studies, if they choose to. If they don’t, they must arrange for potential adopters to be referred elsewhere. This is not necessarily the same as giving couples a free choice, but it is progress. In addition to local authorities, so far three voluntary agencies have been approved for home study work. These are Childlink in London, the Doncaster Adoption and Family Welfare Society Ltd., and Parents and Children Together (PACT) in Reading. It’s not clear how far these organisations will roam in terms of geographical coverage for providing home study reports, and any information on that would be useful. Am I alone in thinking that the fact that none of the three currently has a web site is, in this day and age, slightly disconcerting?
The Department of Health, which is responsible for approving these voluntary agencies, says that a further two are in the process of applying for approval. I asked them about the criteria used, and received a 13-page list of some 95 criteria. These appear to prevent any organisation which doesn’t already have a track record in domestic adoption from being approved, so it will be interesting to see whether the present three voluntary agencies are joined by any more in the near future.
The Other Path
Many other couples starting out on the road to inter country adoption look across the Atlantic. The can-do society offers a multitude of independent but officially recognised adoption agencies, some of which are happy to work with British couples. The states of Texas, Florida, Oregon and Washington for example are all relatively accessible to foreign couples, in that they don’t have onerous residence requirements. As has been pointed out here before, American states do not necessarily require official UK home studies, and may be quite willing to accept home studies done in the UK by independent social workers. This is all perfectly legal, can be vastly quicker than the alternative ensnarement in British and third world bureaucracy, and at the end of the day will result in an offical US adoption which is fully recognised by the UK authorities and will be celebrated by the award of a British passport and entry clearance to the adopted child.
Getting Things Straight
Potential adopters from Guatemala should be sure to obtain a short but invaluable note called "Guatemalan Adoption Procedures & Processes: as applied to birthmother relinquishments, not abandonments". It includes a general summary of exactly what you need to do to adopt from Guatemala, and two overlapping lists of documents required by the UK and Guatemalan authorities. Stevan Whitehead, veteran of two Guatemalan adoptions, is the public-spirited compiler of this note. He can be contacted at stevanw@netcomuk.co.uk .
andrew.gibbons@pobox.com
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 .
andrew.gibbons@pobox.com
PRE-ADOPTION PERSPECTIVES
Personal views by Andrew Gibbons
November 1998
Health and Efficiency
Potential adopters who have survived the rigours of a home study assessment may wonder with trepidation how they will fare at the hands of the Department of Health, where their documents are finally assembled, given the once-over and final approval, and despatched to the tender mercies of the authorities overseas. You may be in for a pleasant surprise - a rare phenomenon in inter-country adoption. The DoH service is efficient, and the helpful staff seem well imbued with the service culture (Remember the Citizens Charter?).
It must be said that this was not always so. But credit is due for the great progress that has been made, and the paper-pushing machine currently seems to run very effectively. Complicated procedures can be discussed with experienced staff who can help plan the approach. This is particularly useful when papers have to be shuttled between different destinations, for example with various permutations of translating and notarising.
The entire file assembled by the DoH is referred to as the Home Study. It includes a substantial amount of extra documentation that the applicants do not see, including the DoH’s final endorsement letter, so if you need translations the bills for these will significantly exceed your initial estimates. One reassuring feature is that if the paperwork does have to travel around for translation and notarisation, all covering letters are copied to the applicants by first class post, so you normally know where things are. Those precious documents seem to be treated with due care, although translators are for some reason sent the originals, but are consequently required to send them back "by courier or guaranteed delivery". Finally your dossier is couriered overseas, apparently at the taxpayers’ expense, with the DoH notifying you by letter of the date and signature on delivery. A well-deserved bouquet to Michael Brennan’s team!
One Strike and You’re Out?
Potential adopters who do not survive the rigours of a home study assessment can be in a difficult position. They may of course be treated with understanding and sensitivity, and led into a constructive dialogue which seeks to address and find routes to overcome the difficulties which the social worker and their superiors claim to have identified. On the other hand, they may be treated less sensitively. One such couple wrote at length in the Sunday Telegraph of 8 March 1998 about their unfortunate experiences with Childlink. I have heard other such stories. If you don’t get what you want from whichever agency is doing your home study, such as Childlink or your local authority, there is often no formal machinery for appeal. Given the asymmetric power relationship between potential adopters and these organisations, the general lack of transparent and impartial mechanisms for handling grievances is unfortunate to say the least. Of course, if couples could choose between agencies for their home studies, there might be a lot fewer grievances.
Policy and Practice
Potential inter-country adopters may draw some comfort from the UK government’s latest policy statement on adoption. Entitled Adoption - Achieving the Right Balance, its 14 pages are targetted at local authority social service departments and adoption agencies and are "intended to bring adoption back into the mainstream of children’s services". It is largely about domestic adoption, but says that ICA "is now a major feature of adoption in the UK", and that "The standards and criteria applied in domestic adoption concerning the assessment of prospective adopters are to be applied to families seeking to adopt a child from overseas".
Since many of the circular’s instructions might be regarded as little more than good practice or sound management, it is arguably a recognition that a significant number of agencies fall well short of such standards. An unrelated BAAF press release shows that the average age of UK children entering ‘care’ is 22 months while the average age for adoptions is 5 years 8 months, so there is clearly room for improvement in one key performance indicator.
While warning agencies to be satisfied that couples are "equal to" and "fully appreciate the implications of" ICA, the circular points out that "It is not acceptable for an applicant to be denied the opportunity to be assessed by an agency on the grounds that the agency does not agree with the notion of ICA or that the applicant does not share the same ethnic or cultural background as children from their country of choice".
It also deals with age, health, smoking, post-adoption support, ethnic differences and many other things. Local Authority Circular LAC(98)20 of 28 August 1998 is a worthwhile source to help in getting a fair deal from your agency. Copies from the Department of Health (fax 01937 845381) or find it at http://www.open.gov.uk/doh/dhhome.htm .
andrew.gibbons@pobox.com
PRE-ADOPTION PERSPECTIVES:
Personal views by Andrew Gibbons
May 1998
Why Are We Waiting?
Comedians, at least, know the importance of timing. The official target for completing a home study is six months, which some would regard as a generous schedule. Why then in my case have thirteen months elapsed between first writing to the local authority and a completed home study going to the Department of Health?
The short answer is that the 'six months' clock only starts ticking around the time the social worker first knocks on your door. Before that there can be an array of bureaucratic pre-qualification hurdles to surmount, administered with that spirit of condescending timelessness found only in those dealing with people whom they know have no alternative option.
Clearly, intending adopters should not be misled into taking the six months figure at its face value, and I hope to discuss the details of these delays at a later date. Meanwhile, in the interests of getting a representative picture of how long it can take to get a home study prepared, I would like to hear from AFAA affiliates about how you have fared. Feel free to drop me a note on how long your local authority took to provide the Department of Health with your home study. More detailed consumer reports on the experience would also be welcome. All confidences respected and anonymity guaranteed, but it would be useful to be able to establish the kind of performance we can typically expect on this count - and then see how it can be improved. I look forward to getting your views.
Over There
There is a better way. Americans are much more up-front about inter-country adoption, and their government provides positive support for the practice which Britons can only envy. An indication of the general attitude is shown by the masses of useful information about ICA on the web site of the US State Department Bureau of Consular Affairs. This includes a decade of statistics of adoptions into the USA by country of origin, which shows how country trends rise and fall. China has increased 100-fold in six years, Russia has gone from nought to 2,500 in five years, Korea has halved to 1,500, and Romania has generally been in the lower hundreds apart from a spectacular 2,500 in 1991. The site also has useful information on practical adoption subjects such as finding reliable agencies and lawyers. Perhaps of greatest interest to British potential adopters are the country-specific adoption information pages. These give practical, legal, and background information on ICA from over 60 countries. This is particularly useful as it spells out the legal requirements, and comments on local official procedures and the likely attitude to inter-country adopters. It's an ideal starting point both for those at the early stages of adoption who still have to choose their target country, or anyone who wants to establish what the legal consideration are in a particular country. This cyber-cornucopia can be found at http://travel.state.gov/children's_issues.html .
When you've got friends...
Benefitting from others' experiences is of course particularly important in inter-country adoption, when the published or official information about procedures may be out of date or inaccurate. The West London Support Group (no connection with AFAA apart from some overlap of members) has informal gatherings every month or so near Heathrow, where those at all stages of ICA meet to exchange news, share intelligence and generally raise morale. Sounds good. More details from Stevan Whitehead at stevanw@netcomuk.co.uk .
Snakes and Ladders
In the last issue I mentioned the Department of Health's view that independent home studies are illegal. As the result of a legal challenge in the context of adoptions from Guatemala, the DoH has had to climb down and admit they were wrong on this general point. Sadly this may be little more than a pyrrhic victory. Las autoridades guatemaltecas, like many others, seem persuaded that only British couples with UK entry clearance for the potential adoptee should have their cases approved - and we all know what the practical requirement is for filing entry clearance applications.
Babel or Quits
Competition is a wonderful thing, and it's always worth checking that a service you are about to buy can't be found cheaper elsewhere. Translation of documents for inter-country adoptions is a case in point: the work may be cheaper on the World Wide Web. Aleph.com boasts a global complement of translators between almost all conceivable (and many inconceivable) language combinations, waiting for your assignment at the drop of a fax or e-mail. Plenty of choice, and fast turn-rounds are promised. For each language there are three levels of sophistication to choose from, with the cost per word varying accordingly. You choose your preferred translator by name and domicile from the personal details, experience and prices of the individuals listed in the pool. It all looks quite good in principle, but given the issues at stake in an adoption, it always pays to look for the Titanic factor. The most obvious one that might persuade someone to shop locally is the possible complication if either a translator's letter or the translations themselves need to be notarised, as British notaries' jurisdiction doesn't seem to cover individuals beyond these shores. Nevertheless this is another example of a market where globalisation may favourably affect prices.
andrew.gibbons@pobox.com
PRE-ADOPTION PERSPECTIVES: Personal views by Andrew Gibbons
October 1997
"Please allow me to introduce myself..."
The AFAA committee in its wisdom has agreed that I should provide a focus for pre-adoption issues likely to interest our Affiliate members and those currently undertaking adoptions. There should be plenty to write about, given current developments in the UK inter-country adoption scene. To reflect these adequately, it will of course be helpful to have some feedback from readers about the things that are concerning or exasperating you. So please drop me a line if there is a general issue you would like to air.
Being forewarned about potential pitfalls can be a great defence. If you know in advance that foreign 'legal problems' which suddenly reqire an extra $1,000 have a habit of occurring just when you think you're on the home straight, then it may not be quite so devastating - even if you still have to pay the money.
I have found that one of the best supports in the often uncharted waters of inter-country adoption is to discover someone else in a similar position, to compare notes and exchange useful information - or horror stories. After over a year of frustrating, glacial progress in a South American court, it was both comforting and useful to encounter comrades in adversity with parallel problems. It also multiplied the joy when happy endings were eventually reached.
State of the Art
This is an interesting time to be trying to do an intercountry adoption. A few years ago, things were different, and perhaps they will have improved a few years hence. The current position could be better. Getting a home study prepared by a recognised agency can involve major delays and massive costs. Independent home studies are declared "illegal" by the Department of Health, while it struggles to act as a clearing, holding and forwarding centre for potential adopters' precious documents as they bounce between notaries, translators, the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, diplomatic missions in London and their final destinations overseas.
A few years ago, there were clearly two routes to intercountry adoption: through the official system, and round the official system by the independent route. Some local authorities refused to do anything for intending inter-country adopters, leaving them no alternative except the independent route.
The independent route had its advantages: avoiding a local authority home study was usually quicker and cheaper. Detractors of this route tend to claim that it encouraged a flouting of UK immigation law. Arriving at Heathrow with a foreign, adopted baby and no prior entry clearance was supposedly against the rules - but seemed to work every time! (Apparently it still does, as is shown by adopters who find that children's needs in the real world can't always wait for the delays of paper-shuffling in London.) In practice, prior entry clearance could be obtained and the niceties of immigation law satisfied, if the quality of home study, source country documentation and British consular cooperation was sufficient. I know; I was fortunate.
The present official route to intercountry adoption could be reformed. For anyone who believes that competition and diversity tend to improve quality, foster innovation and reduce costs, it is hard to imagine much progress being made if there is no choice about who potential adopters can deal with in the UK. An obvious change seems to be to open up the market for home studies and their quality assurance.
It also seems optimistic and unfair to expect staff at the Department of Health, however well intentioned, to be able to provide the complex and detailed oversight of adopters' precious documents which is necessary for the range of requirements which exists in different jurisdictions. Since there is not even a common format for combining a home study with its translation, the notarisation and legalisation, this means that errors, delays and extra costs for adopters seem inevitable. At least with the independent route, document handling remains the responsibility of those with the greatest motivation to get the details right and the most to lose if they are wrong, i.e. the adopters themselves.
Notoriety?
After reading Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales at school (yes, quite a while ago), I didn't encounter the curious profession of notary again until doing an intercountry adoption. Most adopters discover these unsung but worthy folk relatively late in the day, when the need arises for verification of the signatures on your documents. Rumour has it that they are licenced by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and you certainly can't do without them. As with all professions, it's worth making the time to shop around. Spending thirty-odd pounds plus VAT on each of a dozen or so documents adds up to quite a lot when you weren't really expecting it. Our Yellow Pages shows that central London, where you expect to find most things, isn't exactly bulging with notaries. In fact you can normally get better deals outside London, and many notaries seem willing to operate by post and fax, rather than insisting on personal attendance.
Having said that, I recall an epic day when I urgently needed to get a letter from my doctor sent off to South America. From the doctor's surgery I taxied across to the Mayfair notary who obligingly did the notarisation by fax with my doctor in a few minutes - one occasion when I was happy to pay Mayfair prices. I then dashed over to the FCO's legalisation department to get the notarisation verified (duly parting with another fee), then up to the ever-cooperative consulate for their stamp (gratis in that case, but perhaps not in all countries) to confirm the FCO's veracity. After all those fees one is so punch-drunk about money that the courier fee (another thirty-odd pounds) barely makes an impact! The moral of the story is that market research may pay, but intercountry adoption is always likely to cost more than the figure you first thought of.
In closing, I would be interested to hear from any readers with recent experience of the adoption process (anonymity guaranteed). Best wishes for success.
andrew.gibbons@pobox.com
Patron: His Honor Michael Cook
Registered Charity Number 1003274
Last modified: 11 August, 2003 .