Adoptions of foreign children by United States citizens in 1993 totaled almost 7,348 out of a world total of 15,000 - 20,000.(1) The United States receives more foreign adoptees than any other country.(2) Many of these children are available for adoption because of war and political turmoil in their home countries. For example, Amerasian children, whose fathers are American soldiers and whose mothers are Southeast Asian, were shunned in their own countries during andafter the Vietnam War. As a result, many were made available for adoption. A similar situation isanticipated in Bosnia where Serbian troops systematically raped hundreds of Muslim women andcreated unwanted children of mixed ethnicity.(3) Whatever the cause, there are more children available for adoption from other countries than there are children available for adoption in the United States where interest in adoption is high.(4)
Intercountry adoption is difficult, especially in the United States where the full adoption procedure entails three distinct phases: (1) the adoption in the foreign country; (2) federal approval of the foreign adoption by the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service; and (3) re-adoption in the United States.(5) The process for each stage is similar and much of the paperwork and effort is duplicated.(6) Nonetheless, each country has its own distinct adoption laws which complicates the process. Finally, there is an attitude in some countries that intercountry adoption is the equivalent of Western countries "taking" children from Third World or other disadvantaged countries.(7)
The 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (hereinafter "Convention") provides minimum uniform rules and procedures for intercountry adoptions.(8) The general goals of the Convention are to set minimum standards for intercountry adoptions that will allow recognition of adoptions among the Convention's member countries, to protect the interests of children, birth parents and adoptive parents and to prevent illegal child trafficking.(9) People concerned with intercountry adoption are interested in preventing a recurrence of the Romanian "baby bazaar" where thousands of babies were auctioned off after the fall of the Ceaucescu regime. This occurred because the country did not have protective adoption laws and was unprepared to handle the thousands of foreign requests to adopt its orphans.(10)
The Convention seeks to achieve its goals by requiring each member country to set up a Central Authority to oversee the adoption process and by assigning some of the adoption responsibilities to the State of origin and some to the receiving State. This article will address the question of whether the Convention can adequately meet its goals by applying its provisions to problems that currently exist in intercountry adoption. The article also examines implementing legislation necessary to make the Convention effective law in the United States and the likelihood that these new rules will be accepted by the United States adoption community.
Intercountry adoption is seen in both a positive and negative light. Proponents believe it is worthwhile because it provides families for children who do not have one in their own country. Opponents see intercountry adoption as a service that provides adoptive parents from predominantly industrialized nations with available children, usually from Third World countries or countries in political turmoil. The opponents view intercountry adoption as a form of colonialism where their children are taken by wealthier countries like raw materials for export.(11) Even though this opinion is held primarily by Third World countries that are wary of releasing their children,(12) the underlying issue is the true motivation behind intercountry adoption. A British Discussion Paper on Intercountry Adoption summarizes this negative view: "intercountry adoption has been known since the post-war years, but what was originally a humanitarian movement in response to the needs of young victims of war has more recently tended to develop as a service for childless couples."(13)
The perception that intercountry adoption is not primarily an endeavor to benefit homeless children is shared by Elizabeth Bartholet, a law professor at Harvard University who has adopted two children from Peru.(14) Professor Bartholet theorizes that a Third World country's pride is damaged when its children are adopted by foreigners because the implication arises that the country cannot take care of its own children.(15) Thus, Professor Bartholet views the debate over intercountry adoption as one involving national interests and not genuine concerns about risks to children.(16) She states, "[t]he nations of the world need to . . . focus on the real needs of children."(17)
The preamble to the Convention addresses the issue of the "best interests of the child."(18) It recognizes a child's need "to grow up in a family environment" and the "necessity to take measures to ensure that intercountry adoptions are made in the best interests of the child and to prevent child trafficking."(19) With these interests at the heart of the Convention, matching children with appropriate families should prevail over finding children for adoptive parents. The preamble also addresses the concern about the removal of children from their homeland.(20) It provides that States should first take measures to find an adoptive home in the child's country of origin.(21) Intercountry adoption should be considered as a last resort, when a suitable family cannot be found in the child's own country.(22) The use of the word "family" is important because the intent is to improve a child's life by giving him the chance to live in a family. The goal of the Convention is not to find any foreign home for the child; it is to place him with an appropriate family. This provision is important because it advocates intercountry adoption before foster care in the child's country of origin.(23) The implication is that a child placed with an appropriate foreign family is better off than one in a temporary foster home in his own country. When the needs of the child are the primary consideration, this assumption is reasonable. Thus, the Convention's preamble demonstrates a belief that intercountry adoptions should be made for the benefit of the child and does not imply that the country of origin is somehow at fault when both sending and receiving countries work together.(24)
The present intercountry adoption process for foreign children coming into the United States involves three steps: "[t]he prospective adoptive parents must satisfy: (1) the law of the country of the child's birth; (2) U.S. immigration law, proceedings and policies; and (3) the laws of the state where the adoptive parents reside."(25) This procedure creates a redundancy of effort and results in inefficiency.(26)
The first step of complying with the law of the child's country of origin concerns whether the child is legally available for adoption, which involves issues of consent.(27) A sole parent who cannot care for a child can release that child for adoption in writing.(28) Deciding whose consent is necessary to render the child adoptable is up to the law of the child's country of origin which determines his legitimacy.(29) If an illegitimate child's natural father has established paternity, both the mother's and father's consent may be required before the child can be released for adoption, depending on the law of the particular country.(30) This can pose difficulties if the child resides with one parent and the other parent is known but cannot be located. Requiring consent from both parents before an adoption can proceed creates an unfortunate situation when the custodial parent gives consent because he cannot care for the child, but the other parent cannot be found in order to get his consent. In that case a child who needs a home cannot be legally adopted. The consent requirement is so strict that in some countries a parent's placing of a child for safekeeping in an orphanage during wartime does not qualify as legal abandonment.(31) Parental consent from both parents would still be necessary before the child could be adopted, but during wartime it would probably be unobtainable.
United States law admits foreign-adopted children who meet the immigration law definition of "orphan."(32) This definition "may be based on the death, disappearance or loss of both parents, or the abandonment by or other permanent separation from both parents."(33) Abandonment includes permanent desertion at an orphanage or a sole parent releasing the child for adoption in writing.(34) The definition does not include the situation where both parents voluntarily release a child.(35) Essentially, the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service makes a second determination of the same factors that have already been established by the country of origin regarding a child's orphan status.(36) In addition, in order for a visa to be issued, adoptive parents in the United States must comply with the preadoption requirements of their state of residence.(37)
Once United States parents successfully adopt a child from a foreign country, it is recommended that they re-adopt the child in their home state to ensure that state requirements have been met. Each state has its own adoption laws, and there is no guarantee that the state will grant an adoption based on comity. About one-half of the U.S. states have adoption laws that do recognize foreign adoptions as a matter of comity.(38) These states treat the foreign adoption as if it were issued by a court within that state.(39) Other states, including Louisiana and Tennessee, require adoption reports from the foreign country in order to recognize the adoption.(40) Problems may arise in the states that have additional requirements. These states, which include Connecticut, Idaho, Minnesota and Rhode Island, require an investigation into the best interests of the child.(41) Another group of states requires satisfaction of their own state adoption laws even after the foreign adoption is complete.(42)
The receiving state will decide "whether the family is eligible to adopt and whether the child is eligible to be adopted."(43) The child's eligibility depends on whether the consent given by the birth parent was valid or whether there is no need for the requirement of consent because of abandonment or termination of parental rights.(44) A valid consent is one that is voluntary, knowing and without fraud.(45) A state will apply its own law, including its choice of law rule. Hence, parental consent that was valid in the child's country of origin may not be valid in the receiving state if the consent would be unacceptable there.(46) Where comity is given to a foreign adoption decree, the country of origin must: (1) satisfy due process requirements of notice and opportunity to the birth parents to participate in the determination of the child's adoptable status; and (2) show that consent was obtained fairly and that its acquisition does not offend the public policy of the state.(47)
This detailed adoption process for American adoptive parents involves a working knowledge of the adoption laws of a foreign country and their state of residence, as well as United States immigration law. The consent necessary to make a child available for adoption must be valid and satisfy United States due process and public policy requirements. Proper consent can only be obtained after a child has been appropriately classified as an "orphan" under the definition of United States immigration law. Many of these inquiries are interrelated and require analysis and determination of the same factors. In summary, "a visa will be granted by the United States only after the federal and state governments independently approve the same child's adoption."(48)
A serious problem with intercountry adoption law is that a child could be without a legal guardian during the time period between the foreign adoption and before the re-adoption in the new country.(49) If the re-adoption fails because the court deems it inappropriate or the adoptive parents decide to withdraw the adoption during the waiting period,(50) then the child will lose the protection of a responsible party. For example, the child could be stranded in a foreign country. This situation occurs often. A recent incident was reported by the President of the National Council for Adoption: "an American couple adopted three children, but left one at the airport on the way home."(51) This could have been avoided if an agency had served as the child's guardian. The agency's responsibility for the child would end with the child's formal adoption but could be reinstated upon abandonment by prospective adoptive parents. As a result, the child would always be in the care of a parent or guardian and would be less likely to "fall between the cracks." If an adoption agency were the guardian, it could help the child find a suitable home. A judge may be less likely to approve an inappropriate adoption on the grounds that a child needs immediate help because he has no guardian and may become a ward of the state, if the judge knows that the child has an interim guardian who can help him look for a new home.(52)
No article of the Convention directly addresses the question of guardianship. However, the need for this type of protection has been recognized in other places. Peter Pfund, Assistant Legal Adviser for Private International Law at the U.S. Department of State, states that "[it] seems likely that the federal implementing legislation would need to ensure that children brought to the United States from abroad for adoption in the United States are actually adopted . . . ."(53) This issue is most closely but not entirely addressed in Article 21 of the Convention which provides for cooperation between Central Authorities when it appears that a prospective adoption will not be in the best interest of the child.(54)
Refugee children have particular problems in addition to those already associated with intercountry adoption. When families break-up and no longer have a homeland, the problem of obtaining proper consent and orphan classification is intensified because it is uncertain if children are abandoned or are just separated from their families as a result of war, conflict or economic devastation. The United Nations High Commission for Refugees has reported cases of intercountry adoption of refugee children where "parents reappeared to claim their children after they had been legally adopted."(55) Research shows that a refugee child's identity is seriously threatened when he becomes homeless because all of his normal associations, including friends, family, neighborhood, culture and language have been stripped away.(56) Because these children need time to develop new relationships, experts recommend that they spend time in group homes before being placed for adoption.(57)
The drafters of the Convention have recognized the special needs of these children. A Special Commission on Implementation of the Convention will meet to decide whether a supplementary instrument regarding refugee children is necessary. Specific issues of discussion include whether countries of asylum can qualify as countries of origin for adoption purposes and how much effort should be required in tracing a child's parents before he is deemed available for adoption.(58)
One of the major goals of the Hague Convention is to implement uniform procedures in determining a child's eligibility for adoption. When the procedures are followed, the State of origin and the receiving State will no longer have to independently prove a child's orphan status. The Convention removes duplication of effort by assigning certain duties to the State of origin and other duties to the receiving State. The State of origin must establish: (1) the child is adoptable; (2) (after first considering placement in the country of origin) intercountry adoption is in the child's best interest; and (3) necessary consent is preceded by counseling, is in writing, has not been induced by payment, and in the case of a mother, is given only after birth.(59) The counseling requirement ensures that the person giving consent understands the significance of his act.(60) As a result, consent given in compliance with this provision of the Convention is presumed to be knowing and voluntary. When the State of origin has fulfilled its duties, the receiving State will not have to make the same inquiries.
The receiving State must establish that the adoptive parents are eligible and suitable, that they have been counseled, and that the child will be authorized to enter the receiving State.(61) The State of origin will be reassured that its child will be going to a suitable home and may be less likely to consider an adoption outside the country as proof of its inability to take care of its own children.(62) Counseling for the adoptive parents is intended to provide more realistic expectations of the adoption and to lessen the chances of their changing their minds once the adoption is underway. Evidence that the child will be able to immigrate is necessary for the protection of the child.(63)
The recognition provision of the Convention solves the problem of having to re-adopt a foreign child after bringing him to the United States. Under Article 23 of the Convention, all adoptions performed by member states shall be recognized by operation of law.(64) There would no longer be any need for re-adoption since all of the parties comply with the same minimum standards.
The federal implementing legislation necessary to ensure the full and uniform implementation of the Convention in the United States must focus on several issues. In particular, the Convention directs the implementing State to provide for a Central Authority, and the accredidation of private adoption agencies.(65)
The function of the Central Authority is to serve as a clearinghouse that (1) provides information on adoption laws and standard forms; and (2) exchanges information with member States in order to facilitate adoptions.(66) The goal of the Central Authority is to expedite the process of international adoption, not to slow it down by adding another layer of bureaucracy. Critics fear that the Central Authority will add to the bureaucracy and put small adoption agencies out of business.(67) To the contrary, the intent of the Convention is to create an efficient Central Authority that will inspire confidence in adoptive parents who will be deterred from looking for children on the black market.(68)
In fact, a Central Authority was incorporated into this Convention because the device was so successful in an earlier Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.(69) That Convention is also concerned with the protection of children, and provides for the return of children who are wrongfully removed and taken abroad during custody disputes. The return of the child is made without issuing a judgment on the merits. As a result, the parties are restored to the position they were in before the removal occurred. This procedure takes away the incentive for a parent to kidnap his own child.(70) In cases of international kidnapping, prompt return of the child is paramount. When parties request information from a Central Authority abroad, the request "may be expedited if that Authority is dealing with a trusted Central Authority."(71) Likewise, foreign countries arranging adoptions of their children may also learn to trust a Central Authority that is skilled in intercountry adoption. In addition, a Central Authority can provide appropriate information and referrals so that bureaucratic red tape is actually reduced.(72)
An additional concern is that the Convention leaves no room for private adoptions.(73) Members of the United States delegation proposed a compromise that would allow private adoptions when both the State of origin and receiving State permit them.(74) These adoptions will be allowed to be arranged by non-accredited bodies (agencies other than the Central Authority or other public agencies) when they are supervised by competent authorities in the State, and the agency meets requirements of integrity, professional competence, experience and accountability.(75)
The provisions of the Convention give member States some flexibility in setting up a Central Authority. Certain functions of the Central Authority are non-delegable and must be performed by the designated Central Authority. These functions include: (1) providing information and forms, and keeping other member States informed of operations;(76) (2) reporting names and addresses of accredited bodies of the Permanent Bureau;(77) (3) ensuring that appropriate action is taken regarding reported violations of the Convention;(78) and (4) providing delegations to attend meetings about the operation of the Convention.(79) Other duties may be performed by "Central Authorities . . . or through public authorization or other bodies duly accredited in their State."(80) These functions include accreditation, screening of adoption agencies to determine if they meet Convention requirements and certification of adoptions entitled to recognition.(81) The benefit of an arrangement where a Central Authority in the federal government deals with non-delegable reporting tasks and State governments are allowed to make accreditation decisions and screen agencies, is that fewer personnel would be needed at the federal level if their main function was to provide information and not to conduct screenings.(82) Some critics of the bureaucratic nature of the intercountry adoption process may find a smaller Central Authority more acceptable than a new federal agency that wields all of the decision-making power.(83)
The choice to allow states to handle accreditation is also a practical matter. The states are already responsible for licensing adoption agencies, and local governments are in a better position to screen agencies because they are familiar with practices in their state.(84) Standards, however, need to be set by federal regulation so that there is uniformity in the requirements for accreditation.(85) The United States Delegation has suggested a compromise where the federal government would be able to overrule a state's approval of an agency but would not be able to approve an agency that the state had not accredited.(86)
The Secretary of State's Advisory Committee on Private International Law on October 4, 1993 handed out a draft of a possible amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act(87) which would work in conjunction with the Convention. The amendment would establish a new category for children adopted pursuant to the Convention, but who would not meet the traditional "orphan" requirements.(88) An amendment is being considered because the documentation provided by the country of origin would be deemed more reliable as a result of its being prepared in compliance with the Convention.(89) The State of origin's determination that the child is adoptable and the removal of the INS "orphan" requirement will relieve the burden on adoptive parents to provide repetitious documentation.
Intercountry adoption is a complex, often misunderstood process that has recently been seen as a threat to children instead of an opportunity for them. In the United States, adoptive parents must satisfy the laws of the federal government, their own state of residence and a foreign country where adoption laws may be subject to change. The Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption is designed to ensure that the best interests of the child are again at the forefront of intercountry adoption. The Convention sets minimum standards with which member States must comply. When States know that all sending and receiving countries must operate by the same rules, an atmosphere of trust can be created.
The allocation of duties between States of origin and receiving States and the proposed amendment to the Immigration and Nationality Act eliminate the repetitive research and paperwork that plague American adoptive parents who now must prove the orphan status of their adoptive child and ensure that all necessary consents have been given properly. The most important provision of the Convention gives recognition to adoptions arranged by member States that comply with the Convention's requirements. An adoption that meets all of the Convention's requirements can be relied upon by all of the parties.
Proposed United States implementing legislation divides Central Authority duties between the federal and state governments. Private adoption agencies will be screened to determine whether those agencies operate according to Convention standards. If they do, the agencies will be allowed to place children. The Convention emphasizes compliance with minimum standards that have been chosen because they simplify and streamline the adoption process. The special problems of refugee children are being considered and may be addressed in a supplement to the Convention. The need for follow-up and assistance in case an adoption fails is left to the coordination of the Central Authorities involved. Individual States will have to decide the extent of their responsibilities in such a situation.
By providing minimum standards that will foster trust and cooperation between member States,
the Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption provides greater protection to foreign children,
birth parents and adoptive parents.
1. Peter H. Pfund, Intercountry Adoption: The 1993 Hague Convention: Its Purpose, Implementation, and Promise, 28 Fam. L. Q. 53, 75 (1994).
2. Id.
3. Susann M. Bisignaro, Comment, Intercountry Adoption Today and the Implications of the 1993 Hague Convention on Tomorrow, 13 Dick. J. Int'l L. 123, 123 (1994). These children are the result of Serbian attempts at ethnic cleansing. The Serbians intended to decrease the Muslim population by creating children of mixed-race (in addition to demoralizing and defeating the Muslims). It is unlikely that the mothers will keep the children who would act as a shameful reminder to them. Id.
4. Ellen F. Epstein, Note, International Adoption: The Need for a Guardianship Provision, 1 B.U. Int'l L.J. 225, 228, & n.22 (1982). The shortage of adoptable American children is due in part to advances in contraception, the availability of abortion and the increasing acceptance of single motherhood. Bisignaro, supra note 3, at 124. Although these factors have worked to decrease the total number of U.S. children available for adoption, the real shortage that exists arises because most adoptive parents are white and most available children are African-American. Elizabeth Bartholet, Where Do Black Children Belong? The Politics of Race Matching in Adoption, 139 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1163, 1166 (1991). Besides creating a shortage of adoptable children, Professor Bartholet cites racial matching policies as one reason why many non-white children spend too much time waiting in foster care. Id. at 1166. Although a full discussion of the relationship between race and adoption is outside the scope of this paper, the history of adoption practice in the United States shows that this problem was caused not just by the racial preferences of adoptive parents, but by rules and procedures in the adoption system. These racial matching policies originated in practices of turn-of-the-century adoption agencies whose philosophy was that children who most closely resembled the adoptive parents would be more likely to create a successful family. Id. at 1176. In 1972 the National Association of Black Social Workers issued a statement that black children should only be placed with black families and that transracial adoption was a form of genocide, mainly because the children would have no Black role models. Id. at 1179-1180. In 1988 the Child Welfare League's Standards for Adoption Service stated, "Children in need of adoption have a right to be placed in a family that reflects their ethnicity or race." Id. at 1190. Therefore, white adoptive parents are unable to adopt African-American children and as a result go overseas in search of children to adopt.
5. Bisignaro, supra note 3, at 130-31.
6. Elizabeth Bartholet, Family Bonds: Adoption and the Politics of Parenting 146 (1993).
7. Margaret Liu, Comment, International Adoptions: An Overview, 8 Temple Int'l & Comp. L.J. 187, 194-195 & n.71 (1994). This perception of taking from the poor to give to the rich may seem extreme, but there is usually an economic aspect to any adoption. A person with enough money to raise a family adopts a child whose own parent(s) could not provide for him. As a result, adoption also involves issues of class. Nancy E. Dowd, Book Review: A Feminist Analysis of Adoption, 107 Harv. L. Rev. 913, 927 (1994).
8. Hague Conference on Private International Law: Final Act of the 17th Session, Including the Convention on Protection of Children and Co-Operation in Respect on Intercountry Adoption, May 29, 1993, 32 I.L.M. 1134 (1993) [hereinafter Hague Convention]. Child trafficking occurs when protective adoption laws are not in place, or when people placing children do not follow adoption laws and allow children to be adopted when the rights of the birth parent(s) have not been properly terminated. If the child has a living parent whose consent is not properly obtained, then that child is not legally available for adoption. See infra text part II.B.1.
9. Pfund, supra note 1, at 54. Child trafficking can be reduced when countries know the requirements that each side must fulfill in order to complete an adoption that will be recognized under the Hague Convention. Each party can be assured that consents have been obtained properly and that a child is available for adoption when they know the requirements have been satisfied.
10. Bisignaro, supra note 3, at 129. Many of the children in Romania were abandoned and placed in unsanitary institutions. Because the children were not "true" orphans, baby sellers could ignore the Romanian law requiring consent of both parents for adoption. There were so many of these children that the system could not investigate all of the children's background or trace the parents. Id.
11. Liu, supra note 7, at 194-95.
12. Id. at 194 & n.70. These governments would prefer help from wealthier nations in the form of funding to help children find homes in their own countries. Id.
13. Jennifer Horne-Roberts, Intercountry Adoption, 142 New L.J. 286, 286 (1992). This Discussion Paper was prepared by the Interdepartmental Review of Adoption Law in the United Kingdom.
14. Bartholet, supra note 6, at 144.
15. Id. at 159 & n.30.
16. Id.
17. Id. at 162.
18. See Hague Convention supra note 8, at pmbl.
19. Id.
20. See id.
21. Id.
22. Id.
23. Pfund, supra note 1, at 56. The 1986 U.N. Declaration on Social and Legal Principles Relating to the Protection and Welfare of Children, with Special Reference to Foster Placement and Adoption states that adoption or foster care in a child's country of origin should be considered before international adoption. Liu, supra note 7, at 195-197. Unlike the U.N. Convention, the Hague Convention provision advocates adoption over foster care. This provision is in line with the Hague Convention's goal of providing children with permanent families. Pfund, supra note 1, at 56 (emphasis added).
24. A country of origin that is part of a cooperative effort to provide what is best for a child is less likely to see adoption of its children as an admission of its own failure to provide for that child. See supra text part II(C).
25. Liu, supra note 7, at 198 & n.98.
26. Bisignaro, supra note 3, at 130. Each step involves determining whether a child is adoptable, and often the same inquiry is followed each time. Id.
27. Cynthia J. Bell, Consent Issues in Intercountry Adoption, 6 Children's Legal Rts. J., 2, 3 (1995). Countries differ as to whose consent must be given to release a child for adoption. Sometimes an absent father's consent is necessary and sometimes an agency can give consent when no parents can be located. Id.
28. Id.
29. Id.
30. Id.
31. Id.
32. Id.
33. Liu, supra note 7, at 206 & n.173.
34. Id. at 207.
35. Id. It seems that the drafters of immigration law did not envision a situation where two parents would ever want to or need to give up a child for adoption.
36. Bisignaro, supra note 3, at 130.
37. Bell, supra note 27, at 3.
38. Liu, supra note 7, at 208. Twenty-two state adoption codes recognize foreign adoption decrees as matters of comity: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Vermont. Id. at 209.
39. Id.
40. Id.
41. Id. at 210.
42. Id.
43. Id. at 208 (citing Richard R. Carlson, Transnational Adoption of Children, 23 Tulsa L. J. 317, 334 (1988)). A child is adoptable when the parental rights of its birth parents have been properly terminated. Id. at 209 (citing Carlson at 335).
44. Bell, supra note 27, at 5.
45. Id.
46. Id. at 5-6. A state that does not acknowledge adoption consent given by an agency may not accept that form of consent from a foreign country that deems it acceptable. Id.
47. Id. at 6.
48. Bisignaro, supra note 3, at 131-32.
49. Epstein, supra note 4, at 225.
50. Id. at 239 & n.106.
51. Stacey Joyce, Overseas Adoption, Often a Stressful Option, States News Service, July 14, 1993, available in LEXIS, News Library, Wires File. That child did not have a legal guardian because either he was a true orphan or the rights of his birth parents had been terminated as part of the foreign adoption. The Americans were not his legal parents because re-adoption had not occurred yet.
52. Epstein, supra note 4, at 246.
53. Pfund, supra note 1, at 71.
54. Hague Convention, supra note 8, at art. 21.
55. Ron Baker, Parentless Refugee Children: The Question of Adoption, in Adoption Essays in Social Policy, Law and Sociology 254, 255 (Philip Bean ed., 1984).
56. Id. at 260-61.
57. Id. at 265.
58. Pfund, supra note 1, at 66.
59. Id. at 57.
60. Hague Convention, supra note 8, at art. 4(c)(1).
61. Pfund, supra note 1, at 58.
62. See supra text part II(A).
63. An advantage of the Convention is that each party to the adoption knows the duties of the other party and can assume that they have been fulfilled.
64. Id. at 73.
65. Id. at 67-69.
66. Bisignaro, supra note 3, at 143.
67. Pfund, supra note 1, at 59; See generally Joyce, supra note 51.
68. Bisignaro, supra note 3, at 143.
69. Carol S. Bruch, The Central Authority's Role Under the Hague Child Abduction Convention: A Friend in Deed, 28 Fam. L.Q. 35, 38 (1994).
70. Peter F. Pfund, The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, and the Need for Availability of Counsel for All Petitioners, 24 Fam. L.Q. 35, 36, 39 (1990).
71. Bruch, supra note 69, at 47.
72. Id. at 42.
73. Bisignaro, supra note 3, at 145-46.
74. Pfund, supra note 1, at 60.
75. Lucille Rosenstock, The Hague Conference on Intercountry Adoption, 15 Fam. Advoc. 60, 60 (1993); Pfund, supra note 1, at 62. Mr. Pfund believes that these requirements are not unreasonable. Telephone interview with Peter H. Pfund (February 28, 1995). In order for Convention adoptions to be automatically recognized, all participants need to know that the agencies involved are qualified and meet Convention standards.
76. Hague Convention, supra note 8, at art. 7.
77. Id. at art. 13.
78. Id. at art. 33.
79. Id. at art. 42. Briefing Paper from Peter H. Pfund, Head of U.S. Delegation to 1993 Hague Conference on Private International Law, Hague Convention on Intercountry Adoption: U.S. Federal Implementing Legislation Issues for Discussion on October 4, 1993 (Sept. 1993) [hereinafter Briefing Paper].
80. Hague Convention, supra note 8, at arts. 8-11, 22, 23.
81. Briefing Paper, supra note 79, at 9.
82. Id.
83. Pfund, supra note 1, at 67-69.
84. Telephone interview with Peter H. Pfund (February 28, 1995).
85. Id.
86. Id.
87. Pfund, supra note 1, at 71.
88. Id. Convention standards are mandated, and a party that knows the other side has met certain minimum requirements has no need to check on that State's procedures by repeating the same inquiries.
89. Id.
All contents copyright © 1997, New England School of Law, Boston, Massachusetts.