resolution to this issue and for these children to be united with permanent families. b) July 7, 2004 to The Guardian Editor in Chief Emily Bell Ms. EMILY BELL Editor in Chief The Guardian Unlimited 3-7 Ray Street London EC1R 3DR United Kingdom July 7, 2004 DEAR MS. BELL: In her article, Red Light on Human Traffic, July 1, Baroness Emma Nicholson makes a number of serious undocumented accusations regarding intercountry adoption while equating intercountry adoption to human exportation and trafficking violations. As the Executive Director of Joint Council on International Children's Services, a national non-profit organization in the United States dedicated to advocating on behalf of children in need of permanent families and promoting ethical standards in intercountry adoption, I challenge the Baroness' conclusions and object to her continued campaign against international adoption. The recent court case referenced by Nicholson, Pini and Bertani & Manera and Atripaldi v. Romania heard by the European Court of Human Rights (ÊCHR), is a singular court case and is not, as Nicholson proclaims, a "landmark judgment on inter-country adoption, which has major ramifications . . . in 45 countries across Europe". In this particular case, the court found that the two girls in question, "preferred to remain in the socio-family environment in which they had been raised at the CEPSB", a private institution approved by the Brasov Child Protection Department. The court also found that "the sole cause of the failure to execute the adoption orders had been the actions of the CEPSB staff and its founder members," including a kidnapping attempt. While the CEPSB may be well managed, it is still an institution and should not be considered a long-term solution for the children in its care. The Baroness also writes "the supply of Romanian children for international adoption is drying up". Unfortunately, the facts show the Baroness' claim is incorrect. According to the Romanian National Authority for Child Protection and Adoption there are 84,382 children in the Romanian system who are in need homes. Over 26,000 children are living in institutions and are estimated to be three years of age or older. It is well documented that children who do not find permanent families, especially those institutionalized over the age of two, are at greater risk for attachment disorders, speech delays and other developmental challenges. Joint Council believes that the child's best interest is of the utmost importance and should never be compromised. When children cannot be cared for by their birth families or in permanent adoptive homes within their country of birth, we believe that intercountry adoption provides the most positive_option for children. Both UNICEF (the United Nations Children Fund), in their January 2004 statement on intercountry adoption and the Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-Operation in Respect of International Adoption support this assertion. Unfortunately, Baroness Nicholson routinely equates international adoption with serious crimes of human exploitation with out providing solid evidence to support her claims. These sensationalist tactics ignore the fact that many thousands of children are successfully adopted into loving families each year. Even more importantly, in lieu of international adoption, the Baroness provides no healthy solutions to the on-going plight of the world's orphaned children. She believes that institutionalizing children in their own country is preferable to finding a permanent, committed family wherever they might be. We cannot be more strongly opposed to her position. Joint Council firmly believes that cases of child trafficking should be quickly condemned and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Many countries, which recognize the tremendous contributions that international adoption have made on the lives of thousands of abandoned, neglected children, have found ways to keep adoptions open while creating stringent systems of oversight that minimize corruption. From experience, they have come to understand that trying to prevent corruption by banning all intercountry adoptions simply does not work. In fact, banning international adoption does nothing to give pause to unscrupulous individuals. What it does do is deny children who are in desperate need from finding permanent families. As citizens of a larger international community, we have an obligation to work together to ensure that a child's health and happiness ultimately governs our actions. Eradicating corruption in adoption should be an international priority. Fully functioning child welfare infrastructures must be established in all countries, and national adoption should always be promoted as preferable to intercountry adoption. At the same time, our ultimate goal should be to find loving, permanent homes for our world's needy children, wherever they may be found. Sincerely, ANTONIA FORKIN EDWARDSON Executive Director Joint Council on International Children's Services c) February 23, 2004 to US Ambassador Michael Guest February 23, 2004 The Honorable MICHAEL GUEST, the Ambassador of the United States The American Embassy Filipescu 26 Bucharest, Romania DEAR MR. AMBASSADOR: Joint Council on International Children's Services (JCICS) is one of the oldest and largest membership associations of licensed, non-profit international adoption agencies, child advocacy groups, parent support groups and medical clinics in the world. JČICS does not place children for adoption or provide adoption services, but rather provides continued education for adoption practitioners and works to promote higher ethical standards in adoption. Joint Council believes that all children deserve permanent, loving homes. When children cannot be cared for in their birth families, or in permanent adoptive homes within their country of birth, we believe that intercountry adoption provides the most positive option for children. I am writing to you on behalf of our member agencies to thank you for your continued commitment to international adoption and attention to the recent events in Romania that have resulted in the cancellation of the Emergency Ordinance. JCICS is pleased that the U.S. Department of State is working diligently to ensure that the 36 cases with court decrees be finalized. However, we strongly believe that all cases filed while the Emergency Ordinance was law and have a registration number from the National Authority for Child Protection and Adoption (NACPA) should also be processed. After a dossier is completed with the 171-H verification letter from the U.S. Embassy in Bucharest, it is filed with the National Authority for Child Protection and Adoption and is assigned a registration number. At this point, the case is officially accepted by the Romanian Government. Joint Council believes that the registration number presents a very easy point of reference from which the U.S. Embassy in Romania can advocate for the cases that had been filed prior to the cancellation of the Emergency Ordi nance. We need to emphasize the urgency of this situation as many children and families have already waited over one year to be united through adoption. If these families are made to wait until a new adoption law is implemented, they could be faced with waiting for an additional year or worse, losing their referral. Your assistance in making sure that the processing of cases with a NACPA registration number becomes a priority with the Embassy will be greatly appreciated. Again, thank you for your continued commitment to this issue. Sincerely, ANTONIA F. EDWARDSON d) February 2, 2004 to Prime Minister Nastase The Honorable ADRIAN NASTASE Piata Victoriei, Sector 1 Bucharest, Romania DEAR PRIME MINISTER NASTASE: Executive Director February 2, 2004 Joint Council on International Children's Services (JCICS) is one of the oldest and largest membership associations of licensed, nonprofit international adoption agencies, child advocacy groups, parent support groups and medical clinics in the world. JCICS does not place children for adoption or provide adoption services, but rather provides continued education for adoption practitioners and works to promote higher ethical standards in adoption. Joint Council believes that all children deserve permanent, loving homes. When children cannot be cared for in their birth families, or in permanent adoptive homes within their country of birth, we believe that intercountry adoption provides the most positive option for children. In May 2003, JCICS submitted comments to your office regarding the draft law which strives to revise Romania's adoption procedures. We have recently learned that the Romanian government is about to implement the new law. As such, we would like to take this opportunity to comment on aspects of the draft law that we believe could compromise a child's right to achieve placement within a permanent family structure. As noted in the preamble to the Hague Convention, States which are signatory to the Convention recognize that the child "should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding" and that "intercountry adoption may offer the advantage of a permanent family to a child for whom a suitable family cannot be found in his or her State of origin". We believe that several provisions_contained within the draft law contradict the basic tenets of the Hague Convention, thus resulting in an inability to fulfill Article 56, which provides for the issuance of a certificate stating that the "adoption is in accordance with the standards stipulated under the Hague Convention." First, while acknowledging a child's right to a family, Article 2 of the proposed law includes language which suggests that a substitute family would be preferential to a foreign adoptive family. Additionally, Article 39 (2) states that international adoption may be allowed only if "the care of the child cannot be appropriately ensured within the special child protection services, be they public or private". The combination of this and similar language is concerning. If children are allowed to be cared for by a "substitute” family or other public or private services before international adoption can be considered, the reality is that the child will not have the greatest opportunity for permanency. This type of wording provides for the practice of institutional care to be made a priority over a permanent family through international adoption; a situation that is in direct conflict with the tenets of the Hague Convention and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Second, Article 46 (1) prohibits international adoption as an option for children who are under the age of two. It is difficult to understand what the purpose of this prohibition would be other than to assure that efforts have been made to preserve the original family and/or pursue a placement with a Romanian family. The draft law does stipulate that such measures are taken within a defined period of time. Therefore, if no permanent family is found to care for the child in Romania, then there is no benefit to force children to wait until the age of two to be adopted internationally. It has been well documented that children who do not find permanent families are at greater risk for attachment disorders, speech delays, and other developmental challenges. By postponing the option of international adoption for two years, the opportunity for a child to overcome these risks is decreased dramatically. JCICS shares the commitment of the government of Romania to strive for best practices in child adoption and welfare laws. We recognize the intense political pressure from both within Romania and foreign entities concerned with corruption issues. However, it is important that the new law be one that provides maximum protection of a child's rights and contains proactive measures to achieve permanent placement within a family structure as echoed in both the Hague Convention and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Until the provisions outlining substitute families, care by public or private services and the age restriction are changed to allow for international adoption as a valuable and timely option, we believe that the draft law fails to provide for the best interests of children. While Joint Council looks forward to implementation of a new law and the end of the moratorium on Romanian international adoptions, we hope that time will be allotted for review and revisions before finalization. Respectfully Submitted, ANTONIA FORKIN EDWARDSON Executive Director Joint Council on International Children's Services 2. STATISTICS AND INFORMATION ON ROMANIA Statistics and Information on Romania • In 15 years, over 8,000 orphaned Romanian children have found permanent, loving families in the United States. • Adoptions peaked in 1991 with over 2,500 children adopted due to media publicity about the thousands of children living in inadequately staffed and funded orphanages after the fall of communism in Romania. • The mean average over the 15 years noted is 548 adoptions annually. • In the spring of 2004, it was estimated that 37,000 Romanian children were still institutionalized, as reported by Gabriela Coman. Timeline: • December 1989-Romania's President Nicolae Ceausescu is overthrown ending communist rule. An estimated 600-700 institutions in Romania provide residence for an estimated 100,000 children.3 • 1991-Adoptions by U.S. citizens peak due to media publicity about the thousands of children living in inadequately staffed and funded orphanages. • December 2000-Prime Minister Nastase takes office; a de facto suspension of international adoptions occurs. • June 21, 2001-The Romanian Adoption Committee (RAC) announces a one-year moratorium on inter-country adoption due to concerns about corruption. • October 8, 2001-The Romanian Government issues an ordinance (OUG No. 121) stating that child protection is one of the priorities of the governing program for 2001-2004, in connection with Romania's integration with the European Union. • December 6, 2001-The Romanian Government issues an Emergency Ordinance (amending OUG No. 121) which allows applications for international adoption to be processed if the case falls under extraordinary circumstances (i.e. special needs or older children) and the adoption is in the child's best interest. 3 Johnson, A. K., Edwards, R. L., & Puwak, H. C. (1993). Foster care and adoption policy in Romania: Suggestions for international intervention. Child Welfare, 72(5), 489–506. |