Category: Uncategorized

CCAI Salutes Adoptive Mom Laura Ingraham and Children Adopted from Russia for Speaking Out in a New Video Urging Putin to Adopt a New Attitude

Today, TV personality Laura Ingraham, who has three adopted children, released a video and related campaign to speak directly to Vladamir Putin about his country’s senseless ban on international adoptions by Americans. In addition to creating and posting the video, Ingraham called on all those who support adoption as a worthy and effective way to find homes for children who desperately need them to use it to spread the message. “Help us raise awareness about the wonders of adoption, so that we may better respond to the desperate needs of innocent children. [T]his focus on Russian orphans is the first of many efforts we will be spearheading to promote both domestic and international adoptions. More than anything abandoned children want to be with caring families who love and care for them,” said Ingraham.

This is not the first time Ingraham has lent her talents to the cause of adoption. She served as the Master of Ceremonies at CCAI’s 13th Annual Angels in Adoption Gala and featured Both Ends Burning’s Award Winning Movie “Stuck” twice on her show.

And of course, a big salute to the adopted children who participated in the making of the film. At CCAI, we believe that the most powerful voice is the voice of the child!

CCAI Statement and Summary Regarding Supreme Court Ruling in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

Veronica
Veronica

CCAI Executive Director Kathleen Strottman’s

Statement Regarding Supreme Court Decision in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

“Through my work with current and former foster youth, I have learned that having a strong sense of one’s culture, heritage and identity is a vitally important part of child and adolescent development. It is for this reason that CCAI has continued to work to ensure that these components are not only recognized but protected by the United States child welfare system.  The Indian Child Welfare Act is an important piece of federal legislation that, when well implemented, carefully safeguards the best interests of Native American children.

 It has been over 25 years since the Indian Child Welfare Act was enacted into law.  In recent years, the media and tribal community have rightly pointed to the disproportionate number of native youth in care as evidence of its continued need.  At the same time, child welfare advocates have pointed out cases in which application of ICWA is resulting in native children being denied a safe, loving and permanent family through adoption.  I sincerely hope that today’s decision sparks a necessary and open discussion of ways that this critically important law might be used to better protect the best interests of children.”

CCAI Summary Regarding Supreme Court Decision in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled 5-4 in favor of the adoptive parents of “Baby Veronica” in Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl and reversed the decision of the South Carolina state court that removed the child from the adoptive parents’ home at the age of 27 months and placed her with her biological father, a member of the Cherokee tribe, whom she had never met.

The Supreme Court’s decision held that the provisions of the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) that the state court relied upon in its decision do not apply to the facts of this case.  Specifically, the Court found that ICWA “was designed primarily to counteract the unwarranted removal of Indian children from Indian families. But the ICWA’s primary goal is not implicated when an Indian child’s adoption is voluntary and lawfully initiated by a non-Indian parent with sole custodial rights.”

The Court stated that the biological father abandoned the child before birth and never had “continued custody” (legal or physical) of the child so there was no relationship that could be discontinued by terminating the biological Indian father’s rights to the child.

The Court also held that ICWA’s adoption placement preferences for Indian families do not apply in this case, because the biological father and extended family did not seek to adopt the child.

 ###

CCAI Legislative and Policy Update – January 2013

In this Update:

  • Adoption Tax Credit Extended in Tax Payer Relief Act
  • Russia Bans Adoptions to the United States
  • Universal Accreditation for Intercountry Adoptions in the U.S.
  • Uninterrupted Scholars Act Allows Access to Foster Youth School Records
  • U.S. Government Launches Action Plan on Children in Adversity
  • Supreme Court of the United States to Hear Indian Child Welfare Act Case on Adoption of Indian Child

***

Adoption Tax Credit Extended in Tax Payer Relief Act

The adoption tax credit, which can be claimed for eligible adoption-related expenses, has helped thousands of American families offset the high cost of adoption since the credit was established in 1997.  The American Taxpayer Relief Act permanently extends the adoption tax credit and income exclusion for employer paid or reimbursed adoption expenses up to $10,000 (adjusted for inflation).

  • Official estimates will be released later by the IRS, but the projected maximum amount of the adoption credit for 2013 is expected to be $12,770. While the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act made the adoption tax credit refundable for FY 2011 and 2012, the credit included in this latest extension is not refundable.

For a copy of the bill see the Text of the Bill from Senate Finance Committee website (the third PDF from the link provides a summary that lists the provisions in the bill).

To learn more about the adoption tax credit, its history and application please see:

Resources:

News Articles:

Russia Bans Adoptions to the United States

On December 28, 2012, President Putin signed Federal Law 18661406, known as the Yakovlev Act, prohibiting the adoption of Russian children by U.S. families effective on January 1, 2013.

  • Law is named after Dima Yakovlev, adopted as Chase Harrison, who died after being left by his U.S. adoptive father in a hot car in 2007.
  • Lawmakers in the Russian Duma have stated that the legislation is a direct response to the U.S. “Magnitsky Act” which is designed to address human rights violations by sanctioning a specific group of Russian officials connected to the death of a whistleblowing lawyer in a Moscow prison.
  • Passage of this law has entirely halted the adoptions of an estimated 500 to 1000 children to U.S. families who were at various stages in the adoption process when the law was passed.
  • State Department reports that they are aware of 565 pending adoptions: 57 cases where the adoptive family has already obtained an adoption decree from a Russian court, 234 cases where a waiting child has been officially matched with an American family, and 274 cases where State is currently unaware whether the family was officially matched with a child.
  • Department of State is working with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to create a comprehensive list of these and any additional U.S. families that may have approved suitability applications to understand the full universe of transition cases that will be impacted by the ban.

Several actions have been taken by Members of Congress in response to this crisis.

  • First, on December 21, 2012, Senators sent a letter to Putin asking for him to not sign the bill into law.
  • Shortly thereafter, the United States Senate passed S. Res. 628 and the House is expected to introduce a similar measure shortly.
  • Members have discussed taking other actions including sending a bicameral letter to President Obama, as well as asking the Russian Ambassador to the U.S. to come to Congress and brief both the House and Senate on his country’s intentions to process outstanding adoption cases.

Russia’s decision to abruptly end adoptions by the U.S. families is tragic for two reasons. First, that Russia would see fit to use their own children as political pawns, and second, that their actions did not evoke moral outrage by members of the global community.   Until a child’s right to a family is properly recognized as a basic human right, such violations can continue without serious consequences for anyone other than the children themselves.

Resources:

  • CCAI Country Overview on Russian Adoptions–View an overview on adoptions in Russia, links to the Department of State’s Office of Children’s Issues’ Russia Alerts and the U.S. Embassy in Moscow’s recent statements, as well as a recent congressional letter to President Putin and other helpful resources.

News Articles:

Universal Accreditation for Intercountry Adoptions in the U.S.

In 2000, The Intercountry Adoption Act required that adoption agencies assisting with an international adoption be accredited.  Where the IAA fell short is that it only applied to adoptions between countries that are both parties to the Hague Convention, meaning that if an adoption is between the U.S. and a non-Hague country such as Russia or Ethiopia, the agency performing the adoption does not have to be accredited and the family involved is left without the corresponding services and protections.

  • The Intercountry Adoption Universal Accreditation Act of 2012 eliminates the “dual track” system, as explained in CCAI’s What Barriers Remain Report and extends the terms of the Intercountry Adoption Act of 2000 to all adoption service providers offering or providing adoption services regardless of whether the child’s country of origin is a signatory to the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption.
  • The Senate version of the bill (S.3331) was passed by the House on January 1, 2013 and sent to the President for signature.

Resources:

News Articles:

Uninterrupted Scholars Act Allows Access to Foster Youth School Records

The Uninterrupted Scholars Act amended the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). When FERPA was written in 1974, lawmakers’ intended to protect parents’ control over their children’s student records. However, because of FERPA, social workers had to obtain a court order to access the school records of a youth in foster care. This meant that youth in care, many of whom have multiple foster care placements, which resulted in school transfers, often had to retake classes or repeat grades because the child welfare agencies and schools could not effectively and efficiently communicate about an individual’s academic records. The Uninterrupted Scholars Act provides social workers access to school records in an effort to ease transitions and improve educational outcomes for foster youth.

Resources:

News Articles:

Action Plan on Children in Adversity

U.S. Government Launches Action Plan on Children in Adversity

The Action Plan is the first-ever whole-of-government strategic guidance on international assistance for children in adversity. The Plan provides a blueprint for the appropriate USG agencies to use in delivering coordinated and effective assistance to children who are vulnerable to violence, abuse, exploitation, and neglect and is governed by three core objectives:

  • Build strong beginnings:  The U.S. Government will help ensure that children under five not only survive, but also thrive by supporting comprehensive programs that promote sound development of children through the integration of health, nutrition, and family support.
  • Put family care first: U.S. Government assistance will support and enable families to care for their children, prevent unnecessary family-child separation, and promote appropriate, protective and permanent family care.
  • Protect children: The U.S. Government will facilitate the efforts of national governments and partners to prevent, respond to, and protect children from violence, exploitation, abuse, and neglect.

Within five years, the Plan calls for USG funded programs to achieve significant reductions in the number of children not meeting age-appropriate growth and developmental milestones; children living outside of family care; and children who experience violence or exploitation.

Resources:

News Articles:

Supreme Court of the United States to Hear Indian Child Welfare Act Case on Adoption of Indian Child

On January 4, 2012 the Supreme Court agreed to address a 1978 federal law underlying the adoption of American Indian children.  The last time the Court reviewed a case regarding the federal Indian Child Welfare Act was 24 years ago in the 1989 Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield.  Since that time, state supreme courts have been split in their decisions regarding the placements of Native American children impacted by the law.  The Court has agreed to hear the case of “Baby Veronica” who was adopted by a couple in South Carolina and later removed from her adoptive placement and placed with her biological father, a member of the Cherokee tribe living in Oklahoma.

Resources:

News Articles:

Family Matters

The following article can also be found in the 2012 April edition of Adoption Today magazine.

Almost ten years ago, I had the privilege of hearing a young woman by the name of Mary recount her adoption story.  A young leader and honor student, Mary, then 16, remembered being at the court hearing that was to put her on the path toward so called “independent living” when her judge stopped and asked her what it is she wanted from life.   Without hesitation, Mary replied, “I want what all kids want, I want a family.”  Luckily for Mary, the judge was so moved by her certainty that he simply ordered the system to, “make it happen.”  Even better, Mary soon learned that her long time caseworker was more than happy to make her a permanent part of his family.  And when asked to describe her first weekend with her new family she said, “it was just perfect, as if I was always meant to be there.”

Since then, I have met hundreds of young people with the same dream.  I have visited orphanages all over the world filled with children who dare not even dream of a family of their own, resigned to instead live out their life sentence to an orphanage.  The fact that children by design are best raised by at least one loving parent is not something we need scientific evidence to prove; we know it at our core.  That being said, there is, in fact, a great deal of scientific proof that a secure and loving relationship with a parent is one of the most critical elements of a child’s early development.  Without the stimulus that comes from such a relationship, a child’s brain will, over time, be damaged.  Such damage can lead to life long physical, intellectual and emotional consequences for these children.

In FY 2009, US government assistance for vulnerable children in developing countries amounted to $2.6 billion through almost 2,000 projects in more than 100 countries.  More than 20 offices in seven USG agencies operating under their respective mandates administer this assistance.  For the most part, this funding is used to support critical needs such as nutrition, health care, education and protection.  Little, if any, goes to helping children living outside of the care of a family find their way to a home.   What is more, the US government has no policy, strategy, guidance, plan or program that focuses explicitly on children outside of family care.

In an effort to change this reality, USAID recently hosted the first ever Evidence Summit on Protecting Children Outside of Family Care. The Summit brought together leading researchers and technical experts to assess the evidence to inform policies, strategies, and programs relevant to protecting children outside of family care in low-income and middle-income countries and to identify evidence gaps to shape the future research agenda. USAID has also committed to establish guiding principles for US government assistance and to develop a strategy by July 2012, to promote evidence-based responses to protect these vulnerable children.

This Summit and USAID’s clear commitment to focus on the needs of children outside of family care is a critical first step towards ensuring that fewer children are languishing in orphanages, living alone on the streets, having to raise their younger siblings or being exploited by traffickers.

To fully realize the goal of reducing the number of children living outside of family care, two major changes in existing U.S. policies and programs are required.  First, we must take the initiative to collect data on these children.  Because these children are omitted from what surveys and studies do exist (most of which are household based), they have fallen off the statistical map.  Getting a sense of how many children are indeed living outside of family care will not only help us to assess the need for services, it will also allow us to better measure our collective progress in meeting such needs.

Secondly, we will need to acknowledge that the best intervention for a child OUTSIDE of family care is to in fact make them a child INSIDE a family’s care.  To do this we need to embrace strategies to prevent child abandonment; strengthen and reunify families; and promote kinship care, domestic and international adoption for whom reunification is not possible.

To learn more about the USG Evidence Summit visit: www.hvcassistance.org/summit.cfm.