Hague Accreditation Services

Hague Accreditation Services offers membership for U.S. professionals providing international adoptions. We present a straightforward approach to assist your agency or adoption firm in implementing the standards as set forth by the Hague Convention of 2000. The regulations are final as of Feb. 15, 2006. Agencies should be in compliance with these regulations.

If your adoption agency plans to work in a Hague Country or provide services for a Hague County you should be working to be Hague Accredited.

To view the actual Hague law, click here.

Final Regulations on Agency Accreditation and Person Approval (99 pages)
22 CFR Part 96
(2/15/06)

CIS Ombudsman - Case Problems

If you have a CIS case problem here is the process to file a complaint to the CIS Ombudsman
http://www.dhs.gov/files/programs/editorial_0497.shtm

Audio - says less than 1 % kids placed due to adoption shut down in some counties

Listen to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Friday Nov. 6, 2009 Legal and Medical Experts to Testify Before Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Support of International Adoption

http://www.cidh.org/audiencias/137/42.mp3

International adoption is the subject of a heated debate among those in the human rights field, and the hearing comes in the wake of policies that have virtually shut down international adoption in Guatemala, Honduras, and Peru.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Emily Dupraz
November 3, 2009 (617) 384-7817

Legal and Medical Experts to Testify Before Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Support of International Adoption

Recent closure of international adoption programs in Central and South American countries violates children’s human rights, experts say

Washington, D.C.—The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights will hold a hearing regarding the “Human Rights of Unparented Children and International Adoption Policies” in the Americas on Friday, November 6, in Washington, D.C. The hearing, requested by Harvard Law School’s Child Advocacy Program and the Center for Adoption Policy, will begin at 2:30 p.m. at the Organization of American States, Ruben Dario Room, GSB Building, 1889 F St. N.W., Washington, D.C.

International adoption is the subject of a heated debate among those in the human rights field, and the hearing comes in the wake of policies that have virtually shut down international adoption in Guatemala, Honduras, and Peru.

This hearing represents a major development in the human rights debate surrounding these issues, as the Commission will address human rights violations that to date have been largely ignored. Many have claimed the human rights mantle in opposing international adoption. The legal and medical experts testifying on November 6 will argue that restrictions on ethical international adoption violate children’s basic human rights by condemning them to damaging institutions or to the streets. They contend that every child has a right to be placed in a nurturing permanent home, whether that home is in the country of birth or abroad. Adoption abuses should, they say, be addressed through enforcement and strengthening of laws prohibiting such abuses, not through closing down international adoption and thus denying homes to children.

The delegation will urge the Commission to initiate an investigation to examine what effect closing international adoption opportunities in these countries has had on unparented children.

The testifying delegation includes leading pediatric experts on early brain development, and legal experts on human and child rights:

· Elizabeth Bartholet, Professor of Law and Faculty Director of Child Advocacy Program, Harvard Law School;
· Paulo Barrozo, Asst. Professor of Law and International Human Rights Scholar, Boston College Law School;
· Karen Bos and Charles Nelson, Children’s Hospital Boston, Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health.

A copy of the written testimony to be presented to the Commission is attached, and a tape recording of the testimony will be available after the hearing at the following website: http://www.cidh.oas.org/prensa/publichearings/Hearings.aspx?Lang=EN&Session=117

The Child Advocacy Program (CAP) at Harvard Law School is committed to advancing children’s rights and interests, and to training generations of students to contribute to law reform and social change. One of the only legal programs of its kind, CAP unites the study of law and the practice of law. The Center for Adoption Policy is a non-profit organization whose mission is to promote effective legislation and ethical practices governing domestic and intercountry adoption. It is not affiliated with any organization involved in adoptive placement.

For more information, contact:

Elizabeth Bartholet: 617-999-4430(c), 617-495-3128(o), ebarthol@law.harvard.edu
Paulo Barrozo: 617-792-9475(c), 617-552-4388(o), Barrozo@bc.edu
Karen Bos: 330-620-8162, Karen_Bos@hms.harvard.edu
Charles Nelson: 617-834-3539(c), 617-355-0401(o), charles.nelson@childrens.harvard.edu

New York Center for Adoption Policy:

Ann Reese: 212-925-0141, AnnNReese@aol.com
Diane Kunz: 919-309-0371, DianeKunz8@gmail.com

Webinars in Nov.

We will be having webinars in Nov. covering several issues such as mergers, dealing with complaints, new accreditation, renewing accreditation and more. Email if you have a subject we need to cover.

COA Tip Sheet on hiring a Consultant

Hague Accreditation Services meets all the requirements noted in the tip sheet issued by COA.  Please review this information when seeking a consultant.

http://www.coanet.org/Files/HagueAppTips%20.pdf

Hague Regulations Final Rule 22 CFR 96

FinalHagueRegs21506

COA / DOS contract signed July 18, 2006

Council on Accreditation (COA) Accrediting Entity Agreement with the Department of State

July 18, 2006

The Department of State is pleased to announce that it has designated the Council on Accreditation (COA) as an Accrediting Entity under the the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (IAA).  The text of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with COA is published in today’s Federal Register.  The MOA was signed on July 12, 2006 by Maura Harty, Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, and by Richard Klarberg, President and Chief Executive Officer of COA.  The MOA text may be found at www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main using the search terms Department of State and Memorandum of Agreement. It is also included at the end of this message in its entirety.

To accredit agencies or approve persons, COA will use the standards established in 22 CFR Part 96, the final rule on Accreditation of Agencies and Approval of Persons under the IAA.  COA joins Colorado’s Department of Human Services, which has already been designated as an Accrediting Entity by the State Department.  COA will accept applications from adoption service providers licensed and located throughout the United States, while Colorado will limit applications to providers licensed and operating in the State of Colorado.   Both COA and Colorado expect to begin accepting applications soon after their fees are approved by the State Department and published later this summer. 

[Federal Register: July 18, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 137)]
[Notices]              
[Page 40771-40775]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18jy06-98]                        

=======================================================================
———————————————————————–

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 5467]

 
Memorandum of Agreement Between the U.S. Department of State and
the Council on Accreditation Regarding Performance of Duties as an
Accrediting Entity Under the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000

AGENCY: Department of State.

ACTION: Notice.

———————————————————————–

SUMMARY: The Department of State (the Department) is the lead Federal
agency for implementation of the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of
Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (the
Convention) and the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (IAA). Among
other things, the IAA gives the Secretary of State responsibility for
the accreditation of agencies and approval of persons to provide
adoption services under the Convention. The IAA requires the Department
to enter into agreements with one or more qualified entities under
which such entities will perform the tasks of accrediting agencies and
approving persons, monitoring compliance of such agencies and persons
with applicable requirements, and other related duties set forth in
section 202(b) of the IAA. This notice is to inform the public that on
July 12, 2006, the Department exercised its authority under the IAA and
entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the Council on
Accreditation under which the Department designated the Council on
Accreditation as an accrediting entity. In its role as an accrediting
entity, the Council on Accreditation will be accrediting or approving
qualified agencies and persons throughout the United States in
accordance with the procedures and standards set forth in 22 CFR Part
96 to enable them to provide adoption services in cases subject to the
Convention once the Convention enters into force for the United States.
The Department will monitor the performance of the Council on
Accreditation and approve fees charged by it as an accrediting entity.
The text of the MOA, signed on July 12, 2006 by Maura Harty, Assistant
Secretary for Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State and signed on
July 6, 2006 by Richard Klarberg, President and Chief Executive
Officer, Council on Accreditation, is included at the end of this
Notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Mikiko Stebbing at 202-736-9086.
Hearing or speech-impaired persons may use the Telecommunications Devices for the Deaf (TDD) by contacting
the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department, pursuant to section 202(a)
of the IAA, must enter into an agreement with at least one qualified
entity and designate it as an accrediting entity. Accrediting entities
may be (1) Nonprofit private entities with expertise in developing and
administering standards for entities providing child welfare services;
or (2) State adoption licensing bodies that have expertise in
developing and administering standards for entities providing child
welfare services and that accredit only agencies located in that State.
Both nonprofit accrediting entities and state accrediting entities must
meet any other criteria that the Department may by regulation
establish. The Council on Accreditation is a nonprofit private entity
with expertise in developing and administering standards for entities
providing child welfare services throughout the United States. The
final rule on accreditation of agencies and approval of persons (22 CFR
Part 96) was published in the Federal Register (71 FR 8064-8066,
February 15, 2006). The final rule contains the Department’s additional
criteria for designation as an accrediting entity. The final rule also
establishes the regulatory framework for the accreditation and approval
function and provides the standards that the designated accrediting
entities will follow in accrediting or approving adoption service
providers.

Memorandum of Agreement Between the Department of State Bureau of
Consular Affairs and the Council on Accreditation

Parties and Purpose of the Agreement

    The Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs (Department)
and the Council on Accreditation (COA), with its principal office
located at 120 Wall Street, 11th floor, New York, NY 10005, hereinafter
the “Parties”, are entering into this agreement for the purpose of
designating COA as an accrediting entity under the Intercountry
Adoption Act of 2000 (IAA), Public Law 106-279 and 22 CFR Part 96.

Authorities

    The Department enters into this agreement pursuant to Sections 202
and 204 of the IAA, 22 CFR Part 96, and Delegation of Authority 261.
COA has full authority to enter into this MOA pursuant to a resolution
passed by its Board of Trustees dated June 30, 2006, a copy of which is
attached hereto as Attachment 1, which resolution authorizes Richard
Klarberg to execute this agreement on behalf of COA.

Definitions

    For purposes of this memorandum of agreement, terms used here that
are defined in 22 CFR 96.2 shall have the same meaning as they have in
22 CFR 96.2. In addition, the terms “transitional application
deadline” (TAD) and “date of initial accreditation or approval”
(DIAA) shall have the meaning given them in 22 CFR 96.19 and “uniform
notification date” (UND) shall have the meaning given it in 22 CFR
96.58.
    The Parties agree as follows:

Article 1–Designation of the Accrediting Entity
    The Department hereby designates COA as an accrediting entity and
thereby authorizes it to accredit (including temporarily accredit)
agencies and approve persons to provide adoption services in Convention
adoption cases, in accordance with the procedures and standards set
forth in 22 CFR Part 96, and to perform all of the accrediting entity
functions set forth in 22 CFR 96.7(a).
Article 2–Accreditation Responsibilities and Duties of the Accrediting
Entity
    (1) COA agrees to perform all accrediting entity functions set
forth in 22 CFR 96.7(a) and to perform its functions in accordance with
the Convention, the IAA, Part 96 of 22 CFR and any other applicable
regulations, and as additionally specified in this agreement. In
performing these functions, COA will operate under policy direction
from the Department regarding U.S. obligations under the Convention and
regarding the functions and responsibilities of an accrediting entity.
    (2) COA will take appropriate staffing, funding, and other measures
to allow it to carry out all of its functions and fulfill all of its
responsibilities, and will use the adoptions tracking system and the
Hague complaint registry (ATS/HCR) as directed by the Department,
including by updating required data fields in a timely fashion.
    (3) In carrying out its accrediting entity functions COA will:
    (a) Prepare to accept applications by the TAD by expending its own
funds and other resources for materials development, staff training,
travel and meeting attendance in advance of receiving any fees for its
services as an accrediting entity;
    (b) Make decisions on accreditation and approval in accordance with
the procedures set forth in 22 CFR Part 96 and using only the standards
in subpart F of 22 CFR Part 96 and the substantial compliance weighting
system approved by the Department pursuant to para. 5, Article 3 below;
    (c) Make decisions on temporary accreditation in accordance with
the procedures and standards in subpart N of 22 CFR Part 96 and the
procedures presented to the Department pursuant to para. 3, Article 3
below;
    (d) Charge applicants for accreditation, approval, or temporary
accreditation only fees approved by the Department pursuant to para. 4,
Article 3 below;
    (e) Consistent with 22 CFR 96.19 and 96.97, use its best efforts to
evaluate and decide by the DIAA all applications for accreditation,
temporary accreditation, or approval that were submitted by the TAD;
    (f) Review complaints, including complaints regarding conduct
alleged to have occurred abroad, in accordance with subpart J of 22 CFR
Part 96 and the additional procedures approved by the Department
pursuant to paragraphs 3(c) and 3(d) in Article 3, below. COA will
exercise its discretion in determining which methods are most
appropriate to review complaints regarding conduct alleged to have
occurred abroad.
    (g) Take adverse actions against accredited agencies, temporarily
accredited agencies, and approved persons in accordance with subparts K
and N of 22 CFR Part 96, and cooperate with the Department in any case
in which the Department considers exercising its adverse action
authorities because the accrediting entity has failed or refused after
consultation with the Department to take what the Department considers
to be appropriate enforcement action.
    (h) Assume full responsibility for defending adverse actions in
court proceedings, if challenged by the adoption service provider or
the adoption service provider’s board or officers;
    (i) Refer an adoption service provider to the Department for
debarment if, but only if, it concludes after investigation that the
adoption service provider’s conduct meets the standards for action by
the Secretary set out in 22 CFR 96.85;
    (j) Promptly report any change in the accreditation (including
temporary accreditation) or approval status of an adoption service
provider to the relevant state licensing authority.
    (k) Maintain and use only the required procedures approved by the
Department and those procedures presented to the Department pursuant to Article 3 of this agreement
whenever they apply.

Article 3–Preparatory Tasks (Tasks Preceding the Transitional
Application Deadline)
    (1) Accreditation Materials and Training: In coordination with the
Department and any other designated accrediting entities, by a date
agreed upon by the Parties, COA will:
    (a) Develop forms, training materials, and evaluation practices;
    (b) Determine whether joint training of evaluators or other
personnel is practical, and, if so, assist in conducting or participate
in any joint training sessions;
    (c) Develop explanatory guidance to assist applicants for
accreditation, temporary accreditation, and approval in achieving
substantial compliance with the applicable standards.
    (2) Development of Internal Review Procedure: COA will develop and
present to the Department for approval, by a date agreed upon by the
Parties, procedures that it will maintain and use to determine whether
to terminate adverse actions against an accredited agency or approved
person on the grounds that the deficiencies necessitating the adverse
action have been corrected.
    (3) Development of Other Procedures: COA will develop and present
to the Department, by a date agreed upon by the Parties, procedures
that it will maintain and use:
    (a) To evaluate whether a candidate for temporary accreditation
meets the applicable eligibility requirements set forth in 22 CFR
96.96;
    (b) To carry out its annual monitoring duties;
    (c) To review thoroughly complaints or information referred to it
through the Hague Complaint Registry or from the Department directly,
including procedures for obtaining complete and accurate information
about conduct alleged to have occurred abroad;
    (d) To review complaints that it receives about its own actions as
an accrediting entity for Hague adoption service providers;
    (e) To make the public disclosures required by 22 CFR 96.91; and
    (f) To ensure the reasonableness of charges for the travel and
maintenance of its site evaluators, such as for travel, meals and
accommodations, which charges shall be in addition to the fees charged
under 22 CFR 96.8.
    (4) Fee Schedule Development:
    (a) COA will develop a fee schedule for accreditation, temporary
accreditation, and approval services that meets the requirements of 22
CFR 96.8. Fees will be set based on the principle of recovering no more
than the full cost, as defined in OMB Circular A-25 paragraph 6(d)(1),
of accreditation, temporary accreditation, and approval services. COA
will submit a fee schedule developed using this methodology together
with comprehensive documentation justifying the proposed fees to the
Department for approval by a date agreed by the Parties.
    (b) The approved fee schedule can be amended with the approval of
the Department.
    (5) Substantial Compliance Weighting Systems Development:
    (a) COA will develop a substantial compliance weighting system as
described in 22 CFR 96.27, and will submit it to the Department for
approval by a date agreed upon by the Parties.
    (b) COA will develop a separate substantial compliance weighting
system to be used in evaluating temporarily accredited agencies that
incorporates the performance standards in 22 CFR 96.104 and will submit
it to the Department for approval by a date agreed upon by the Parties.
    (c) In developing the systems described in paragraphs (a) and (b)
of this section, COA will coordinate with any other accrediting
entities, and consult with the Department to ensure consistency between
the systems used by accrediting entities. These systems can be amended
with the approval of the Department.
Article 4–Initial Accreditation (Including Temporary Accreditation)
and Approval Tasks
    (1) The Department will consult with COA and all other accrediting
entities before establishing the transitional application deadline
(TAD), the uniform notification date (UND), and the deadline for
initial accreditation or approval (DIAA).
    (2) Within an agreed number of days following the TAD, COA will
make public the names and addresses of agencies and persons that have
applied to be accredited (including temporarily accredited) or
approved, provide a mechanism for the public to comment on applicants,
and consider comments received from the public in its decisions on
applicants. With respect to additional applications received prior to
entry into force of the Convention, COA will make the names of such
applicants public within an agreed number of days following receipt.
COA will consider any public comments in its decisions on the
additional applicants.
    (3) In conformity with 22 CFR 96.58, COA will not release its
accreditation (including temporary accreditation) and approval
decisions prior to the UND. COA will prepare the list of decisions to
be announced on the UND and transmit the information as directed by the
Department. COA will immediately notify the Department of any
corrections, so that the Department may rely upon this list in
compiling the list of initially accredited and approved adoption
service providers that it will deposit with the Permanent Bureau of the
Hague Conference on Private International Law.
Article 5–Data Collection, Reporting and Records
    (1) Adoptions Tracking System/Hague Complaint Registry (ATS/HCR):
    (a) COA will maintain and fund a computer and internet connection
for use with the ATS/HCR that meets system requirements set by the
Department;
    (b) The Department will provide software or access tokens needed by
individuals for secure access to the ATS/HCR and facilitate any
necessary training in use of the ATS/HCR;
    (2) Annual Report: COA will report on dates agreed upon by the
Parties, in a mutually agreed upon format, the information required in
22 CFR 96.93 as provided in that section through ATS/HCR.
    (3) Additional Reporting: COA will provide any additional status
reports or data as reasonably required by the Department, and in a
mutually agreed upon format.
    (4) Accrediting Entity Records: COA will retain all records related
to its accreditation functions and responsibilities in printed or
electronic form in accordance with the electronic recordkeeping policy
that applies to Federal acquisition contracts under Federal Acquisition
Regulation 4.703 for a minimum of six years after their creation, or
until any litigation, claim or audit related to the records filed or
noticed within the six year period is finally terminated, whichever is
longer.
Article 6–Department Oversight and Monitoring
    (1) To facilitate oversight and monitoring by the Department, COA
will:
    (a) Provide copies of its forms and other materials to the
Department and give Department personnel the opportunity to participate
in any training sessions for its evaluators or other personnel;
    (b) Allow the Department to inspect all records relating to its
accreditation functions and responsibilities and provide to the Department copies of such records as requested or required for oversight, including to evaluate renewal or maintenance of the accrediting entity’s designation, and for purposes of transferring adoption service providers to another accrediting entity;
    (c) Submit to the Department by a date agreed upon by the Parties
an annual declaration signed by the President and Chief Executive
Officer confirming that COA is complying with the IAA, 22 CFR Part 96,
any other applicable regulations, and this agreement in carrying out
its functions and responsibilities;
    (d) Make appropriate senior-level officers available to attend a
yearly performance review meeting with the Department;
    (e) Immediately report to the Department events which have a
significant impact on its ability to perform its functions and
responsibilities as an accrediting entity, including financial
difficulties, changes in key personnel or other staffing issues, legal
or disciplinary actions against the organization, and conflicts of
interest;
    (f) Notify the Department of any requests for information relating
to its role as an accrediting entity under the IAA or Department
functions or responsibilities that it receives from Central Authorities
of other Hague signatories, or any other foreign government authorities
(except for routine requests concerning accreditation, temporary
accreditation, or approval status or other information publicly
available under subpart M of Part 96) , and consult with the Department
before releasing such information;
    (g) Consult immediately with the Department about any issue or
event that may affect compliance with the IAA or U.S. compliance with
obligations under the Convention.
    (2) Departmental Approval Procedures: In all instances in which the
Department must approve a policy, system, fee schedule, or procedure
before COA can bring it into effect or amend it, COA will submit the
policy, system, fee schedule, or procedure or amendment in writing to
the Department’s AE Liaison via email where possible. The AE Liaison
will be responsible for coordinating the Department’s approval process
and arranging any necessary meetings or telephone conferences with COA.
Formal approval by the Department will be conveyed in writing by the
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Overseas Citizens Services or her or his
designee.
    (3) Suspension or Cancellation: When the Department is considering
suspension or cancellation of COA’s designation:
    (a) The Department will notify COA in writing of the identified
deficiencies in its performance and the time period in which the
Department expects correction of the deficiencies;
    (b) COA will respond in writing to either explain the actions that
it has taken or plans to take to correct the deficiencies or to
demonstrate that the Department’s concerns are unfounded within 10
business days;
    (c) Upon request, the Department will also meet with the
accrediting entity by teleconference or in person;
    (d) If the Department, in its sole discretion, is not satisfied
with the actions or explanation of COA, it will notify COA in writing
of its decision to suspend or cancel COA’s designation and this
agreement;
    (e) COA will stop or suspend its actions as an accrediting entity
as directed by the Department in the notice of suspension or
cancellation, and cooperate with any Departmental instructions in order
to transfer adoption service providers it accredits (including
temporarily accredits) or approves to another accrediting entity,
including by transferring fees collected by COA for services not yet
performed.
    (4) By a date agreed upon by the Parties, the Parties will agree
upon procedures for handling complaints against the accrediting entity
received by the Department or referred to the Department because the
complainant was not satisfied with the accrediting entity’s resolution
of the complaint. These complaint procedures may be incorporated into
the Department’s general procedures for handling instances in which the
Department is considering whether a deficiency in the accrediting
entity’s performance may warrant suspension or cancellation of its
designation.
Article 7–Other Issues Agreed by the Parties
    (1) Conflict of interest provisions:
    (a) COA shall disclose to the Department the name of any
organization of which it is a member that also has as members
intercountry adoption service providers. COA shall demonstrate to the
Department that it has procedures in place to prevent any such
membership from influencing its actions as an accrediting entity and
shall maintain and use these procedures.
    (b) COA shall identify for the Department all members of its board
of directors or other governing body, employees, and site evaluators
who also serve as officers, directors, employees, or owners of adoption
service providers. COA shall demonstrate it has procedures in place to
ensure that any such relationships will not influence any accreditation
(including temporary accreditation) or approval decisions, and shall
maintain and use these procedures.
    (c) COA shall disclose to the Department any other situation or
circumstance that may create the appearance of a conflict of interest.
    (2) Liability: COA agrees to maintain sufficient resources to
defend challenges to its actions as an accrediting entity, including by
maintaining adequate liability insurance for its actions as an
accrediting entity brought by agencies and/or persons seeking to be
accredited or approved or who are accredited or approved, and to inform
the Department immediately of any events that may affect its ability to
defend itself (e.g., change in or loss of insurance coverage, change in
relevant state law). COA agrees that it will consult with the
Department immediately if it becomes aware of any other legal
proceedings related to its acts as an accrediting entity, or of any
legal proceedings not related to its acts as an accrediting entity that
may threaten its ability to continue to function as an accrediting
entity.

Article 8–Liaison Between the Department and the Accrediting Entity
    (1) COA’s principal point of contact for communications relating to
its functions and duties as an accrediting entity will be the Standards
Associate. The Department’s principal point of contact for
communication is the Accrediting Entity Liaison officer in the Office
of Children’s Issues, Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of
State.
    (2) The parties will keep each other currently informed in writing
of the names and contact information for their principal points of
contact. As of the signing of this Agreement, the respective principal
points of contact are as set forth in Attachment 1.
Article 9–Certifications and Assurances
    (1) COA certifies that it will comply with all requirements of
applicable State and Federal law.
Article 10–Agreement, Scope, and Period of Performance
    (1) Scope:
    (a) This agreement is not intended to have any effect on any
activities of COA that are not related to its functions as an
accrediting entity for adoption service providers providing adoption services in intercountry adoptions under the Hague Convention.
    (b) Nothing in this agreement shall be deemed to be a commitment or
obligation to provide any Federal funds. The Department, consistent
with the IAA, may not provide any funds to the accrediting entity for
the performance of accreditation and approval functions.
    (c) All accrediting entity functions and responsibilities
authorized by this agreement are to occur only during the duration of
this agreement.
    (d) Nothing in this agreement shall release COA from any legal
requirements or responsibilities imposed on the accrediting entity by
the IAA, 22 CFR Part 96, or any other applicable laws or regulations.
    (2) Duration: COA’s designation as an accrediting entity and this
agreement shall remain in effect for 5 years from signature, unless
terminated earlier by the Department in conjunction with the suspension
or cancellation of the designation of COA. The Parties may mutually
agree in writing to extend the designation of the accrediting entity
and the duration of this agreement. If either Party does not wish to
renew the agreement, it must provide written notice no less than one
year prior to the termination date, and the Parties will consult to
establish a mutually agreed schedule to transfer adoption service
providers to another accrediting entity, including by transferring a
reasonable allocation of collected fees for the remainder of the
accreditation or approval period of such adoption service providers.
    (3) Changed Circumstances: If unforeseen circumstances arise that
will render COA unable to continue to perform its duties as an
Accrediting Entity, COA will immediately inform the Department of
State. The Parties will consult and make an effort to find a solution
that will enable COA to continue to perform until the end of the
contract period. If no such solution can be reached, the contract may
be terminated on a mutually agreed date or, if mutual agreement can not
be reached, on not less than 14 months written notice from COA.
    (4) Severability: To the extent that the Department determines,
within its reasonable discretion, that any provision of this agreement
is inconsistent with the Convention, the IAA, the regulations
implementing the IAA or any other provision of law, that provision of
the agreement shall be considered null and void and the remainder of
the agreement shall continue in full force and effect as if the
offending portion had not been a part of it.
    (5) Entirety of Agreement: This agreement is the entire agreement
of the Parties and may be modified only upon written agreement of the
Parties.

Attachment 1–Resolution Unanimously Adopted by the Board of Trustees
of the Council on Accreditation

June 30, 2006.
    “Be it resolved, that Richard Klarberg is authorized to execute
a Memorandum of Agreement by and between the Council on
Accreditation (COA) and the Department of State, Bureau of Consular
affairs pursuant to which COA is designated as an accrediting entity
under the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 (IAA), Public Law 106-
279 and 22 C.F.R. Part 96.”

Dated: July 12, 2006.


Maura Harty,
Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State.
 [FR Doc. E6-11362 Filed 7-17-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-06-P

Foreign adoption treaty sets up double standard within U.S.

Foreign adoption treaty sets up double standard within U.S.
By McClatchy-Tribune News Service
October 20, 2009, 9:43PM
DAVID SHAFFER, Minneapolis Star Tribune
MINNEAPOLIS — Last year, an adoption agency in Florida was denied permission to find children for American families in 77 foreign countries that have agreed to operate under the rules of an international treaty aimed at cleaning up abuses in international adoption.
But the agency, Celebrate Children International (CCI), is still promoting adoption in four nations that have not signed the treaty, including Ukraine and Ethiopia.
Critics say the case is a stark example of how the U.S. government has created a double standard as it implements the Hague Adoption Convention to protect parents and children during foreign adoptions.
“It just totally invalidates what the Hague is trying to do,” said Elizabeth Emanuel, of Nashville, who has adopted four children from other countries. She is among the parents who complained about the Oviedo, Fla., agency when it was seeking Hague approval.
The Hague treaty was drafted in 1993, when it became clear that the worldwide phenomenon of inter-country adoptions was overwhelming the ability of governments to deal with it. Dozens of nations got together and created a uniform set of rules aimed at removing fraud and duress from the process of finding new homes for orphans.
More about families
More about adoption
More world news: Cleveland.com/world
More national news: Cleveland.com/nation After spending more than a decade on approval and implementation, the treaty finally took effect in the United States last year, amid new allegations of corrupt adoption practices in Guatemala and Vietnam, including kidnapping and baby-trafficking.
The treaty promotes ethical conduct and professionalism by U.S. adoption agencies and their contractors abroad. Agencies that want to operate in Hague-approved nations must first undergo a lengthy accreditation process to make sure they meet various ethical and professional standards. A nongovernmental organization oversees compliance on behalf of the State Department.
But the treaty has a big loophole. While 14 adoption agencies in the United States were denied accreditation, they weren’t kicked out of the international adoption business (though two closed down). Neither were many other American agencies that haven’t sought accreditation. Hague regulations don’t bar agencies from working in countries that haven’t signed the treaty, including 17 nations where Americans have adopted children in the past decade. Altogether, more than 100 nations have not signed the treaty.
U.S. officials concede the treaty creates a double standard. But they emphasize the improvements offered by the new multi-nation system. Under Hague rules, for example, agencies must prevent buying and trafficking of children for adoption and are prohibited from encouraging adoptions by providing finder fees to brokers. Breaking the rules can lead to the loss of accreditation.
A State Department official said in an e-mail that the department is not ready to support a requirement that all international adoption agencies be accredited because “more work needs to be paid to perfecting the current process prior to its expansion.”
Lesley Harmoning, an adoptive parent from Red Lake Falls, Minn., believes the United States needs to enforce a single standard now.
“There needs to be greater authority to hold these agencies accountable because the states don’t seem to be doing it,” said Harmoning, who also complained about CCI’s conduct in Florida.
CCI was denied accreditation because it did not meet Hague standards. Government officials declined to provide reasons for all denials. CCI director Sue Hedberg declined to comment.
In Minnesota, which has the highest rate of international adoption in the country, 14 of 18 agencies that have pursued international adoptions have obtained Hague accreditation. No Minnesota agencies were denied, but one firm elected to end its China adoption program rather than go through the nine- to 18-month process, which costs at least $7,500.
Chosen Ones Adoption Agency in Maplewood, which has found U.S. homes for about 20 Chinese orphans since 2000, is now referring clients to other agencies because China is implementing the treaty, agency director Esther Harris said.
“It’s prohibitive,” Harris said of the accreditation process. “The concept of the Hague is good. It is supposed to stop trafficking, but it is stopping a lot of other things too.”
Altogether, 213 U.S. agencies have passed accreditation, and 48 more agencies are under review.
Americans who seek foreign-born children using a non-accredited agency lose one of the most important protections under the treaty — a place to complain if something goes wrong.
Complaints against accredited agencies can be lodged online with the State Department. That provision doesn’t apply to non-accredited agencies.
The job of investigating complaints was given to the Council on Accreditation, a nonprofit organization in New York that also handles accreditation duties. Only the state of Colorado will investigate its own cases. If an investigation confirms that an agency violated standards, it can lose its accreditation, shutting it out of the 77 treaty countries.
But in an interview, Richard Klarberg, the council’s chief executive, conceded that the council isn’t prepared to conduct international inquiries into complaints of corrupt adoption practices. Baby stealing or other fraudulent adoption practices have been alleged in Vietnam, China, Liberia, Guatemala and India. Some countries halted adoptions after such revelations.
“The reality is that the Council on Accreditation lacks the resources, either in staff or financial resources, to send someone to China to review a complaint. … We lack that capacity,” Klarberg said.
The council is an unlikely investigative unit. It was founded in 1977 by child welfare advocates to promote high standards and professionalism by social workers and others in the field. For a fee, the council offers an 18-month review of an organization’s standards and practices. Institutions as varied as sheriff’s youth programs to chemical dependency treatment centers have been accredited by the council.
Klarberg said the council has just three staff members to investigate complaints against U.S. adoption agencies. They can question U.S. agencies and gather documents related to their foreign activities. So far, the agency has opened at least 17 investigations, but no agencies have been sanctioned. The council will leave the more complicated job of investigating foreign conduct to foreign governments or the State Department.
That’s not good enough, said Gina Pollock, an adoptive mother and board member of Parents for Ethical Adoption Reform, a group that lobbies for changes in federal laws. She said the job of investigating international wrongdoing should be the government’s, not a nonprofit organization’s.
“I believe they have the desire,” Pollock said of the council. “I don’t think they have the capacity. … I don’t think they can wear a police hat.”
——
(c) 2009, Star Tribune (Minneapolis)