Basic online adoption laws
Federal laws
The US State Department defines any entity which is responsible for the identification and placement of a child as an adoptive service; this definition also holds true on the internet. However, merely posting children’s photos for adoptive purposes on the internet does not make those websites adoptive services. Therefore, such entities will not need to be approved. Nonetheless, they are still expected to carry out these activities in an ethical manner.
First, the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act 16 CFR 312.2 states that online photolisting should only take place when the concerned agencies have obtained parental consent. This applies to children below the ages of thirteen. The Federal trade Commission says that all adoptive websites should provide true and fair information about the children they are handling. Furthermore, children are not allowed to offer their personal information unless parental approval is sought.
On the other hand, the federal statute 47 U.S.C. 230 protects individuals who operate photolisting websites. It considers them as third parties if they were not involved in the development of information about the children. In the event that the information provided about the children is deceptive, then other parties will be held liable as long as the photolisting website did not participate in its creation.
Furthermore, if the website under consideration is interactive then the online adoptive agency will be exempted from civil liability if it can be shown that the information given was not obtained from its operator. Such an individual would be treated as a disseminator or publisher of information rather than the source of that inaccurate information. Immunity therefore comes into effect only when information is not created from the online adoptive agency.
The internet has facilitated numerous international adoptions thus making the Protection of Children and Cooperation in respect of intercountry adoption a necessary piece of law affecting those concerned. If someone is running an adoption service on the internet that entails more than one country, then that person is prohibited by Article 32 of the Convention from charging unreasonable prices. In other words, one cannot get extra ordinary income from these activities.
Furthermore, agencies are expected to charge clients for costs incurred during the adoption process and an additional professional commission; this fee should be reasonable. Even the administrators, employees and directors involved in the adoption service need to be paid reasonable amounts for their services. The same can be said of websites that offer local adoption services or interstate services.
Agencies offering adoption services in the US are also governed by the Intercountry Adoption Act 2000, No 106-279 Stat 842. Here, the law prohibits adoption agencies on the internet from arranging adoptions or placements unless they have been accredited or unless they are offering that service under an agency that has already been approved. Willful violation of this statute will result in criminal penalties and civil penalties will be charged for unknowingly doing the same.
The same statute 42 USC 14902 also outlines what an internet adoptive service would have to do in order to be defined as an adoptive service. It could qualify as one if any of the following activities occur within it: If there is identification and arrangement of an adoption then that would qualify as an adoption service. Secondly, when one seeks approval from a parent in order to relinquish their parental rights for adoption then that is also an adoptive service. Third, if one makes a report on a child’s background or does the same on behalf of prospective parents on the internet then that entity will qualify as an online adoptive service. Fourth, a website will qualify as an online adoptive agency when it gets to decide on the child’s best interests. Fifth, when one engages in an evaluation of a case until the end of its adoption on the internet then that company qualifies as an agency.
Lastly, when an internet provider also offers temporary care for children pending adoption then that group would qualify as an adoptive service. Exceptions may be made if it has been shown that an internet website simply gives information concerning children in need of adoption on behalf of other entities. In that case, that website will be treated as a media company such as a television show, magazine or a newsletter. If the online service simply focuses on giving information about such children without looking into the details of adoption, then that website will not require federal accreditation.
Most online adoptive agencies place children’s private information or photos in the public domain. Some may select particular profiles and feature them on their sites. In such circumstances, it is imperative that the agency seeks broad consent. First, the internet service will have to explain to the child, his guardian, biological parent or social service agent that the child’s photo and information will be used in that manner.
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act also outlines a number of standards to protect individuals from public displays of their personal medical information. However, the extent to which agencies can display this information is open to interpretation by the court since some basic health information needs to be given about those who are to be adopted.
Minnesota State laws
According to the Min. Stat 245A.03, any online adoption agency must be licensed in order to assist in the placement of a child. This statute defines placement as the act of actually keeping a list of prospective adoptive parents or a list of birth parents. The state of Minnesota also regulates the nature of fees to be charged by online adoption agencies. The agency is only allowed to charge a reasonable fee and should provide a timeline for payment. Full disclosure should be given concerning the fees charged by an agency before a placement can be completed.
A child who has HIV should be protected from public displays of his status. Additionally, an online company should not share information about family members of the waiting child. However, exceptions do exist for siblings or underage family members. In fact, it is common practice to talk about these individuals in photo listing websites because children may not take separation from their siblings well.
In Minnesota, a birthmother cannot display information on the internet about a child they wish to put up for adoption without getting consent from the birthfather. In other words, dual consent from the biological parents is necessary in this state. Nonetheless, other states may not have this provision.
Ethical issues
Children’s matters
The internet has provided several adoption agencies or photo listing services with opportunities to place their information in the public domain. However, because of time and space restrictions, then a number of ethical and legal issues may arise.
First, some online agencies will prescribe what they feel would be the best parenting style for a child and this may sometimes be misleading. A website may say this: “Maggy needs a high degree of patience and direction. She requires a family that will supervise task completion and one that will have clear rules in place. Many people have objected to placement of such information in the public domain because it is quite distasteful. Websites make it much harder for such children to get adoptive families because they have simply assumed that behaviors will be carried forward from their foster homes into their adoptive homes. Additionally, these assertions are offensive to children who may be hurt by exposure of such personal information.
A number of photo listed children may come from racial minorities and it has been shown that several websites enforce racial stereotypes about such children. For instance, one description may be “Jarom is an affable African American child with an even temperament and is great in sports. He has no physical impairments and is great company.” This description has actually limited Jarom’s capabilities. Maybe Jarom is an intellectual or is great in other things but because the website’s owner has judged him by his physical abilities alone, then this may really minimize his life chances. Furthermore, the publisher of such information is clearly stereotypical about members of this race.
This may cause a lot of uproar from prospective parents who may want to see Jarom for who he truly is rather than what members of his race have been known for. Also, children can be affected by such descriptions because some may believe them or may fail to exploit other possibilities. This may also cause racial friction between proactive members and the online adoption service.
Sometimes some websites may make children appear like commodities to be marketed. In other words, they may use language that reduces them to products on display. For instance, a website may describe a child as follows: “Tim is a well mannered body, who is fast on his feet and very keen on hygiene….” This description focuses too much on the positive character traits of the boy and makes him look similar to a product being marketed in the media.
Instead of trying to balance Tim’s personality traits, this description is biased and accentuates his positive attributes alone. Very little has been said about his preferences or the things that make him unique. It is almost as though such an agency wants to secure a placement as quickly as possible so they wanted to weed out anything that may be objectionable to prospective parents even if it is true about the child.
In other situations, a website may offer unnecessary information about a child’s past. For instance, one profile may state the following “Matthew has been in and out of foster care… It is possible that he may have been exposed to prenatal drugs as a fetus” Such comments only serve to raise speculation about the participant even when the featured child was never really exposed to the drugs. These highly speculative descriptions may deter interested parents from getting involved or they may affect a child’s confidence. Many prospective parents will want to know about the developmental issues associated with a certain child and if there are any red flags – even when some are really unfounded – then chances are that they will avoid taking up that child.
Similarly, some websites may use complex medical terms in order to describe the physical condition of a child. This may prevent interested parties from truly understanding the waiting child and thus cause him to miss out on an adoptive family. Sometimes it is better to utilize language that prospects can relate to so as to avoid confusion.
Placing a lot of personal details on the internet for the entire world to see may sometimes work against that child. Their fellow classmates may find this information and since it is quite personal, may use it against those children. Waiting children can get teased or bullied if their strengths and weaknesses are overly exposed like that. Issues about their mental or physical health status could have brought this on and caused them great harm in the subsequent future.
Child predators have used a series of avenues to locate their prey. If children are simply listed on a website without any adult consent and no involvement of a supervisory body then a child predator may attempt to contact them or take advantage of them. This is the reason why it is so important for online adoption websites to only feature children after getting consent from their parents.
Privacy laws about children need to be respected because sometimes particular profiles may be overly exposed in those concerned websites. In such scenarios, it is imperative for the groups concerned to understand that children need to know what is going on in their lives. Some agencies or facilitators may simply get consent from adults without duly informing the child that they have been put up for adoption. This is a serious and unethical mistake because once those children get the information from their schoolmates then they could be severely damaged. Some may even make it quite hard for the prospective adoptive families to stay with them since the photo listing was done without their knowledge and consent.
Generally speaking, the internet does have certain strong points because of its wide reach and its ability to solicit interest even amongst groups that may not have traditional access to that information. On the other hand, it raises several ethical questions affecting waiting children. First, the quantity and quality of information shared about the child can lead to problems. If too much information is given about the child then this could affect the child’s psychological well being and their privacy.
It can also lead to misunderstandings amongst interested families who may interpret this excessive information negatively. Besides, when the information under consideration is subjective, then chances are that the public may view this information and take it seriously. For example, information about past developmental challenges and medical histories may raise red flags. The second aspect about internet photo listing relates to the quality of information chosen. Sometimes, agencies may not look into the actual sources of information thus minimizing or ruining their chances for adoption. If the information under consideration is speculative then the adoption website will have done great injustice to the waiting child.
Alternatively, some information given about the child may also be inaccurate if it has not been updated. When health related postings are made, then the concerned agency should give context to the medical terms. Unless explanations are made, prospective parents will never know the exact challenges involved in those medical conditions. It is always possible that manifestations of one disease in a certain child could be dramatically different in another. Therefore, careful selection of descriptive terms should be made in order to ensure that this does not in any way harm the concerned child.
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of internet adoption is international adoption. Some parties have questioned the notion that prospective parents from wealthy nations have the right to take up children from poorer nations. These individuals have not considered the cultural and racial issues that may arise out of such decisions. This is often true for older children who already have a formed identity.
The children may experience a deep sense of loss because they may miss the familiar environment that they had grown up in. Also, international adoptions tremendously minimize the possibility of reuniting with one’s biological parents as geographical barriers cannot be ignored. The internet has made it so easy to do inter-country adoptions but these have sometimes brought more harm than good. It is misguided to always assume that children will be better off in a richer country. Some miss out on the rich heritage that their home countries provide. Additionally, their countries miss out on a vital human resource that would have made a difference in the nation.
These children may sometimes need to justify that they actually had real families in their birth countries as adoptive parents may have a negative attitude. What is even worse is that sometimes the adoptions may not be done procedurally in that agents fail to get consent from biological parents. Children who happen to be victims of such unethical and illegal conduct often suffer the most because they are separated from a family they love and care for in their home countries.
Such issues were raised in the matter of US v Lauryn Galindo, CR03-00187Z (2004). The defendant was charged with fraud charges by the District of Washington Court. It was found that she obtained immigrant visas illegally. Furthermore, she gave false information about the identity and history of children from Cambodia who she labeled as orphans in need of an adoptive home. This was found to be false as some of those children had homes and stable families back in Cambodia.
What’s more, Lauryn Galindo extorted about eleven thousand US dollars from each US prospective parent in order to get immigrant visas for the Cambodian children. They created false documents that would hasten the travelling process as Immigration laws allow for a faster immigration process if it has been ascertained that the concerned child is orphaned and has found a home in the US. This broker went even further and changed the identities of the Cambodian children. They were renamed and their stories were exaggerated or altered to make the arrangement seem legitimate.
The court found her guilty of fraud and she was required to forfeit her home plus serve a term of eighteen months in jail. The most alarming thing about this case of online international adoption fraud was that the Cambodian children were the ones who suffered the most. Some of them were devastated for months because they just could not understand why they were not living with their biological families any more.
In fact, after realizing that the Cambodian children were not orphans, some adoptive parents chose to return them to their original homes. Others American parents had already bonded with them so they decided to keep in touch with those families or organize for occasional visits to those homes. In such situations, children tend to have an identity crisis and may get confused about where they truly belong. These huge geographical barriers between the US and sending countries make it easy to remove children from happy homes and bring them to the US as false orphans.
Adoptive parents’ challenges
Because most internet adoption websites are privately run then specific individuals have the capacity to choose who to place or list as a prospective parent and who to ignore. Sometimes this may be done unfairly especially when prospective families are unconventional. One such instance was the case between a gay couple and an internet adoption service called Adoption.com i.e. Butler vs. Adoption Media, C040135JL ND Cal., (2004).
In this case, the defense counsel stated that the gay couple was denied listing because the company truly believed that children would thrive in traditional families than if they were placed in nontraditional ones. However, in California, gay couples are eligible as prospective adoptive parents. Nonetheless because the online adoption agency was based in another state where same sex couples were not explicitly allowed to adopt then it was probably best for the court to uphold the decision made by this adoption agency.
In other words, it ruled in favor of the internet site. Therefore, prospective parents are not always immune from discrimination by online adoption agencies. It may be possible to challenge the decisions made by those services in court but one may never be sure of the outcome. These prospective parents are placed at the mercy of officials in online adoption services, employees or owners of those services.
The internet can be used as a platform for carrying out actual adoptions but it may also be seen as an advertisement medium. Many parents will place their profiles on adoption websites or photo listing websites. However, sometimes these parents may act unethically when they make it look like they are coercing birth parents into selecting them because of their luxury homes and other things they can provide. Such behavior is wrong because it is as though they are trying to put a price on good values and principles.
Before the advent of internet adoption, prospective parents would contact adoption services in their states and view photos or profiles of waiting children. This implied that information access was limited and prospective parents could not hide their identity. However, online adoption has changed all that; it is now possible for prospective parents to view these profiles on the internet anonymously. This implies that by the time a parent contacts a professional, they will already be fully equipped with information. Sometimes adoption agencies may be overwhelmed by these questions and may not have the time to answer each query effectively. Adoptive parents may lose out because of this lack of personal contact with adoption professionals by getting inaccurate information.
The internet also increases the degree of control that potential parents can exercise over the selection of a child. Adoption agencies normally have this discretion but some may overstep their boundaries. Prospective parents may be branded unfit even when the reasons are not valid. Consequently, this is unethical and frustrates prospective families.
Since a high number of intercountry adoptions are facilitated by online adoption agencies then prospective parents are now facing new challenges revolving around this mode of adoption. First of all, some countries’ legislative and adoption systems are still poorly developed. This means that one may have to meet with a series of officials in order to secure just one adoption. These countries may be highly inefficient and may sometimes lack adequate support for foreign parents.
Prospective parents can get frustrated and may try to work around these systems by circumventing the law. Such a decision may backfire on them. It is often difficult for adoptive parents to access original materials or records for waiting children if they are carrying out an international adoption. Sometimes adoptees’ medical records may be written in a different language. Besides, inefficiencies in medical technologies may cause sending countries to miss vital health problems that may affect the well being of the waiting child after adoption. Also, because cultures are distinctly different, some countries may not consider certain conditions as serious enough to warrant medical attention; one such example is attention deficit disorder.
Parents who use the internet to advertise may become targets of unscrupulous dealers. Many cases have cropped up of international operations which sell children. Some dealers have entered into agreements with several prospective couples and obtained cash from more than one couple even when it is only one baby that is concerned in the operation. Therefore, internet advertising for prospective parents places them at a vulnerable place because unscrupulous brokers may target them for fake adoption placements.
However, it should be noted that this can occur only when the prospective adoptive parents are uninformed about adoption procedures or when they lack advocacy. For instance, several cases of fake adoptions have been traced to Cameroon. Many prospective parents who have provided their contact information on adoption websites have been targeted by these individuals. They usually send emails in broken English concerning available orphans who lost their parents tragically.
These are normally fake stories that may lure unsuspecting prospective adoptive parents. Most are drawn to the easy adoption terms promised by these conmen and even end up releasing personal financial information. Many have lost thousands of dollars without getting a hold of any baby. Therefore, prospective parents are extremely vulnerable to spammers owing to the public display of their information.
Sometimes biological parents may not be in a position to pay for their own legal fees during online adoption processes. As a result, prospective adoptive parents may have to do this on behalf of the birth mother. The attorney’s loyalties may be spilt because he is expected to offer unbiased representation. Issues of dual representation are on the rise because the internet has increased the privatization of adoption. Lawyers must be ready to represent either side ethically regardless of the circumstances under which they are operating. Those who alter representation in order to meet the needs of one party are highly unethical and may actually face questioning from the injured party. The state has several platforms for addressing these concerns such as disciplinary boards and the quadruple A grievance procedure.
Many prospective parents will approach or use agency adoptions because they feel that such kinds of agencies adhere to strict standards. Indeed this assumption is quite accurate because federal and state laws have been passed in order to ensure that the highest licensing standards are maintained by those bodies. However, the presence of online agencies makes it quite difficult for prospective parents to be sure about the ethical standards governing those bodies.
It is difficult for uninformed parents to determine which bodies are licensed and which ones are not. Further still, many of them are nothing more than photo listing websites since they do not arrange for placements. The law clearly states that a body will not be licensed if it engages only in the process of listing. However, prospective parents may not be aware of this and some may find themselves in the midst of a dilemma or a struggle with the owners of an agency.
The preference for agencies lies in the fact that they have the strongest mechanisms in place to ensure accountability. Some people may choose to use the services of a facilitator instead of an agency because the facilitator will play a guidance role in the adoption process. However, the major challenge with facilitation rather than agency based online adoptions is that most parents will be disgruntled about the lack of accountability mechanisms in facilitation adoption compared to the agency based arrangements.
Independent adoptions through the internet may sometimes be difficult for prospective adopters because they may not know of the right places to look or they may have a very difficult time actually getting identified by the right birth mother. What this implies is that so many individuals may wait for weeks if not months to get located by the right birth mother. What is even worse is they have no opportunity to defend themselves if they possess a quality that could be causing this delay. For instance, same sex couples may have little room for redress is they employ photo listing as the only adoption source.
Biological parents issues
The internet can allow relative anonymity of adoption professionals. Consequently, unknowing birth mothers may be coerced by unscrupulous individuals who may promise them certain benefits. These services may eventually exploit the biological mother by denying her some of the rights that she is entitled to during the process of adoption. Since first time mothers may be unaware of the laws in their state, some may not do their homework before collaborating with a professional and this may cause them a lot of problems. The situation is made worse when the birth parents come from different parts of the world or when they are not in a position to understand anything about US adoption laws.
A case that illustrates how biological parents have been coerced into adoption was the US vs. Focus on children, et al. 1:07-CR-19 DS (2008). The defendants – who were the owners of ‘Focus on children’ agency; Karen and Scott Bucks had misled and coerced Samoan mothers into giving their children up for adoption. They had asserted that the children would be part of an outreach program in the country. ‘Focus on children’ agency told Samoan parents that their children would come to the US for a short while as part of the program and then return back after completing it. However, these parents soon realized that they had been misled.
In the case, the US government authorized creation of a Samoa Victim Support group which reached out to these biological mothers. Most of them were unhappy that they had lost their children and even demanded that they be returned. Nonetheless, because those children had already blended into their new adoptive homes, the Samoan birth mothers instead embraced the possibility of communicating with them and seeing them occasionally. This case illustrates the overarching need for birth mothers to know about their rights in an adoption otherwise this could cause them to lose children that they may have raised on their own.
Sometimes adoption agencies may wish to make placements so quickly that they may be willing to compensate birth mothers for it. This is an unethical practice amongst adoption agencies especially because an adoption process should not cause the birth mother unnecessary expenses but neither should it be used as a money making venture. What this means is that she should remain in the exact financial situation she was in prior to the arrangement. For instance, she may have incurred medical expenses to obtain all medical records for the waiting child. She may also need to pay legal fees and others. These should all be covered but in order to protect parties from inflated costs, a court can review her expenses and establish the right amount.
In certain scenarios where the adoption is an independent one, birth parents may sometimes be at pains to decide whether parents can really provide strong stable environments of their children. This is especially true when the concerned parents possess certain character traits that are difficult to understand. For example, an adoptive parent could have an issue of age. The prospective parent may be too old or too young. Birth mothers will have to decide on whether these parties are actually capable of raising their child because they may lack parental expertise when too young or may not be around for the entire life of the waiting child if they are too old.
In other situations, the problem may actually be the marital status of the would-be adopters. Some may have undergone several divorces or some may be single. If a birth mother does not carry out thorough research on a future adoptive couple then she may give her child away to people who may not offer a safe home for her child. Birth mothers who take on this duty of actually identifying potential parents independently through the internet may find it difficult to answer some of these questions on their own. Alternatively, some may make these decisions but may do so wrongfully and jeopardize the future of the child. The internet has definitely increased birth mother control over adoptions but this may actually harm the child.
Agency concerns
Before the advent of the internet, adoption was a reserve for welfare workers or other social service employees. However, this matter has dramatically changed today. What was previously a nonprofit venture is now considered a lucrative business by both private adoption attorneys and other profit making entities. Because this issue involves a lot of emotion and attachment, it is questionable whether a profit seeking mentality would be the best approach in this kind of business.
Online adoption has created certain peculiar challenges owing to the freedom accorded to independent brokers. Some brokers may use the wide reach associated with the internet to con prospective countries in various countries. A case in point was that of Tina Johnson – Flintshire County Council v Mr. Kilshaw, Mrs Kilshaw, Guardian as Litem, Official solicitor, Mr. Wecker, Mrs. Wecker., 2FLR 476 (2001).
The private broker in this case ran a private online adoption service from her home and what put her on the spotlight was the case of two American born twins. These twins were born to a 28 year old mother called Tranda Wecker and they had initially stayed with an American couple called Mr. and Mrs. Allen. These two had paid Tina Johnson a substantial sum for adoption of the twins and they had even stayed with the twins for two months.
However, their biological mother came back to the couple and requested to spend some time with the twins as a last treat. Ms. Wecker instead took the children to another adoptive couple in Britain called the Wilshaws. They had travelled from Britain to California to receive the twins and had already parted with a lot of money in order to adopt the twins. Tina Johnson had made double the amount of money from the Brits than she had from the American couple and all prospective couples were required to pay a non refundable fee. This matter was brought before American courts as well as British courts.
The matter is still pending before court after the biological parents also declared interest in the case. The case illustrates how unethical internet brokers can take advantage of prospective adoptive parents in order to make extra money through some legal loopholes in the system.
Perhaps the biggest dilemma in internet adoption is with regard to the degree of openness that all the parties are entitled to. Birth parents may require a certain degree of anonymity although children may want to minimize this anonymity. On the other hand, prospective parents will also try to do the reverse. Since the internet facilitates this kind of anonymity, it is incredibly hard for adoption professionals to meet the needs of all the parties involved in the adoption without compromising on one of their preferences. These professionals may have to be firm about the level of openness that they expect from any of the parties involved n the adoption.
International online adoptions may sometimes appear unethical because of the exorbitant costs involved in carrying them out. Some agencies my charge about twenty thousand dollars while others may charge as little as two thousand dollars. Normally, the fees charged are supposed to reflect the services involved in completing adoption. Online agencies would be unethical to inflate prices and attempt to make extra ordinary profits from these parents.
In fact, if the fees benefit these adoption services excessively then they could give the appearance of selling and purchasing children for profit. Without good ethical standards, adoptive agencies can tarnish their country’s names and thus reduce possibilities of facilitating future adoptions for children who need adoptive families or prospective parents who need children. Usually, lack of regulation in these sending countries may tempt online adoptive agencies to increase prices but this is clearly unethical. Only those who can provide a review of the fees they charge and the costs they encounter will be regarded as ethical.
Certain adoption agencies may desperately look for placements. It is quite easy to coerce or cause prospective parents to accept a certain child through the internet since a lot of positive information can be disseminated through these websites. The said agencies may be acting unethically if they do not allow prospective parents adequate time to weigh all their options. Also, these agencies may cause prospective adoptive parents to face legal suits after the adoption processes have already been completed. This may lead to dire consequences that may even cause loss of the adopted child and immense pain within the adoptive family.
Attorney’s role in an online adoption
Adoptions are somewhat different from other scenarios that require legal representation because legal counsel plays both a preventive and a representative role. In other words, the attorney will prevent the occurrence of any incidences by meeting legal requirements but will also be there in the event of any unwanted occurrences. Online adoption by its very nature should not undermine the seriousness of an adoption. Here, a child is either leaving their birth mother or foster care and is going to become a member of another family. The responsibilities of the birth parents are relinquished and transferred to the adoptive family.
Even the child’s rights will be provided for by another party and this may include offering financial support, education, inheritance and providing for the child’s basic needs. In this regard, the parties must go through an extensive process so as to ensure that they can cover all these major needs and wants. There will be terms and languages that cannot be understood by the layman and this is where the attorney steps in.
When a prospective couple decides to do an online adoption, they normally have a series of options to choose from. Here, they may need to decide on doing a foreign adoption or a domestic one. If the adoption will be local, then they need to be aware of the state laws governing that process and a lawyer will help them ensure that every step in the adoption process is adhered to. Alternatively, if the adoption is foreign then the concerned prospective parents need to be familiar with international laws governing the transference of the children. Sometimes some parents may go for an open adoption while others may want to keep it closed.
An adoption lawyer is supposed to advice on these matters. Also, some parents may prefer to use an agency or to get to the parents themselves; these are all matters that the adoption attorney will assist in. It should be noted that these same roles may also be applicable in non internet related adoptions. However, the attorney’s role is redefined when online adoptions are being made. For instance, local adoption fees are different over the internet than traditional adoption fees so the attorney will offer guidance on that. Federal and state laws differ concerning placement and access of private information on the internet.
Laws such as Children’s online protection Act and the Health insurance and portability act will need to be applied as biological parents place information about a child awaiting adoption. An attorney is likely to guide a birth mother when placing this information. The internet also makes the use of private adoptions much easier since access to waiting birth mothers is much higher on these websites. Nonetheless, this also makes the concerned parents vulnerable to unethical brokers or birth mothers. Lawyers can advise on the right procedures to be followed and may find ways of identifying loopholes that may cost them in the end.
For independent adoptions, the prospective parents normally take up an active role in determining the children or the birthmothers that they can work with. In these circumstances, an attorney will be crucial in helping such parents identify the right internet sites and also the right procedures to contact the birthmothers. He or she will help the prospective family to ensure that the right methodologies have been followed. Issues of consent from the birthmother must be ascertained and documented in order to avoid future complications after the adoption has been finalized.
On the other hand if the adoption is done through an online public agency then the situation is normally a little different. Here, the birthmother and the prospective adoptive parents will not interact with one another. Instead, the birth mother will surrender her parental rights and leave the choice of an adoptive family in the hands of the adoption agency. The attorney in this case will be responsible for gathering all the legal documentation so that the case can be finalized.
He or she will also represent either the prospective adoptive family or the biological mother in court. Usually, the law requires the adoptive family to appear in court several times in order to ascertain that they will be good enough for the waiting child. Here, the court will look into the financial background of the family, their religious status and other aspects that testify to their moral character. Also, the courts will need to find out if the adopting family has any criminal records or if they will cause any danger to the concerned household. Their parenting history will also be examined and it always helps if the concerned parties have some experience with raising children.
Eventually, examination of these issues may take a period of about six to eight weeks and most of the time; a lawyer will be there to demonstrate that the prospective family is the right one to adopt the child. In order to claim full parental rights over a child, one needs to file an appeal with a court of law that one is interested in adopting a child. In this process, the child’s birth certificate will need to be relinquished in order to show that the rights and the responsibilities of raising this child have been altered.
These steps cannot be done by a couple alone. The adoption process can be rather painstaking and difficult to complete. If a couple can find a way of delegating these activities to a lawyer then they can definitely expect a smooth transition. However, it should be noted that in certain scenarios, dual representation can arise. There are several issues that have arisen out of dual representation in the past. Consequently, it is always best for attorneys to focus on one case.
Many adoption agencies will have their own legal representatives who they can offer up to adoptive parents. This may sometimes work when the adoption agency and the parents are not going in separate directions but the same may not be true if the opposite scenario was a reality. Some couples will go for the retained attorneys in those agencies in order to minimize the hustle of actually finding a lawyer by themselves. In Minnesota, it is permissible to do an advertisement for birthmothers so lawyers can be helpful in drafting these profiles or help with the right placement websites.
It should be noted that online public adoption agencies normally follow very rigorous procedures before ascertaining that an adoption has been completed. They usually work with social workers who do background checks on parents in order to ensure that they are worthwhile. If everything is in order, then the adoption agency will give approval and eventually list the parents on their websites. However, sometimes, some biases may arise because of certain unique conditions. Some employees or representatives of the agency may not particularly like a certain family and may choose to deny them photo listing rights even when that family is alright.
This is where an attorney can step in; prospective parents may use the services of an attorney to ensure that they are treated fairly by these online adoption agencies. They can argue that the social workers were partial or biased in their judgments and that they do have a right to adopt a child on their website.
Many states have their own procedures on the use of intermediaries or the options available to independent adopters. This means that if the adoption is interstate then the respective coupe will need to know about the laws applicable in both states. This is definitely something that can be handled well by the concerned lawyer. Also, the parties involved will need to consider the best option for them in the independent adoptions. Sometimes some parents will want to carry out all the work independently and this may just work for foreign adoptions. Conversely, some may prefer adoption facilitators rather than public or private online adoption agencies.
Consequently, an attorney will still be useful in maintaining the best interests of both parties involved. Some prospective couples prefer meeting with potential birth to parents by visiting websites that contain such lists. An attorney will often be helpful in such cases in order to ascertain that the biological mother’s rights are respected and that the prospective parents cater for whatever they are supposed to. If an independent adoption is going on, then the prospective adoptive parents will need to compensate birthmothers. Sometimes this may involve in court or out of court settlements. Some birth mothers will charge high sums while some may not.
A lawyer will be responsible for negotiating with birth mothers the prices to be paid. Usually if no agreement is reached then the matter can be decided by a Court of law. Conversely, if the adoption involves an agency then the attorney will be responsible for ensuring that the biological parents meet the criteria laid out by most of these agencies. Furthermore, the lawyer will be in a position to ensure that all the impending issues in the adoption are discussed thoroughly.
A lawyer should be able to inform the biological mother of her rights prior to completion of the adoption. If the attorney represents prospective adoption parents then he should also advise on the rights of such a family. Independent adoptions can sometimes to be very tricky because there is no go between to ensure that the rights of both parties are respected. An attorney provides that crucial link because he or she is governed by standards laid out in the Bar association and other membership organizations. This means that the adoption can be done ethically even without involvement of a specialist agency.
Sometimes parents may want to keep their options open concerning knowledge of birth parents. In other words, they may want to go for an open adoption. Online websites make it relatively easy to do open adoptions because a database for birth parents can be maintained easily and accessed by children in later life. An attorney will be useful in advising prospective parents about the ramifications and benefits of such a choice in the future. Most times, prospective parents make these decisions independently and often contact an attorney after doing so but it is always advisable to be safe and do so before. It should be noted that even though adoptions are closed, the internet has revolutionized personal networks.
Social networking websites or other websites dedicated to the process of reuniting birth parents and adopted children have cropped up. An adoptive family may not be in a position to control their child’s actions and if that individual really wishes to locate his or her biological parents, then that person can always do so relatively easily with the help of the internet.
As stated earlier, international adoptions are widely being facilitated through the internet. Many parents who are interested in adopting internationally will find that there are several regulations and laws that need to be surpassed. These are all issues that can be done with the assistance of an attorney who has specialized in international law. It can even be more complicated to adopt a child from a country that speaks a different language. Here, their laws will be drafted in that language thus making them incomprehensible to the prospective parents.
Usually in these scenarios, a child’s citizenship may become debatable and if adopting parents try to deal with this on their own then they are likely to land the child or themselves in trouble at some point in the future. The international adoption lawyer who uses the internet as a crucial tool in his practice will be better placed to handle these complexities. There could be certain loopholes that exist in sending countries concerning adoptions and this is where attorneys can assist in.
The adoption attorney also has certain ethical duties during adoption. He is specifically prohibited from misrepresenting a client or engaging in any kind of fraud. As such, the adoption lawyer should remove himself from a case in which the parties appear to be buying or selling a child or making monetary payments for the exchange of a child. It is the duty of the attorney to prevent occurrence of any such conduct. He or she must only ensure that payments made are legal and include such things as compensatory damages to the birth mother for the losses she incurred during the process of adoption and they must be expenses covered by the law.
The American Academy of Adoption Attorneys can reprimand a lawyer for failing to carry out this ethical role. Sometimes when the code of ethics is broken, the lawyer may be reprimanded either publically or privately and may even be suspended if it has been found that he was involved in a fraud case. It should be noted that this duty is particularly relevant in internet based adoptions because of the relative ease with which people can participate in certain malpractices.
Attorneys also play the continuity role. In an online adoption process, a series of legal requirements are always instated in order to ensure that the best interests of the child are safeguarded. This normally involves a review of the adoption one year after it has taken place. In order to ascertain that everything is in order, it always helps to have an attorney during the finalization of the adoption. He or she can determine if there are any missing aspects at this point and thus prevent any possibility of danger arising when the one year review occurs.
When an attorney is mediating between a birth mother and a prospective adoptive family, he or she is obligated to report any kind of substance abuse undergone by the pregnant mother. Instances of neglect will also need to be reported by the attorney and so will he need to give information about the medical history of the birth family. Indeed, the attorney plays a mediating role because he also provides information about the prospective adoptive parents to the biological parents of the waiting child.
Conclusion
Online adoptions have led to a number of complications in law practice because ethical conflicts keep arising from time to time. Intermediaries who never really engage in actual placements have led to increases in independent adoptions. This puts children, biological parents and prospective adoptive parents at risk. Lawyers are put in a tight spot because they have to represent their clients ethically.
References
47 U.S.C. § 230.
42 U.S.C. § 14902.
15 U.S.C § 6502 (a)(1).
Min. Stat 245A.03.
Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act 2003, No. 16 Stat CFR 312.2.
Intercountry Adoption Act 2000, No 106-279 Stat 842.
US vs. Focus on children, et al. 1:07-CR-19 DS (2008).
Butler vs. Adoption Media, C040135JL ND Cal. (2004).
US v Lauryn Galindo, CR03-00187Z (2004).
Types of adoption. Child Welfare Information gateway. Web.
The importance of adoption lawyers when adopting a child. Adoption-Lawyers (2009). Web.
Walling, Wright. Adoption Attorneys: a higher stand of ethics. Walling, Berg & Debele (2010). Web.
Marcy, Axness & Barbara, Shaw. Does adoption respect the interests of birth parents and birth families? (2000) (Unpublished manuscript on file with Kinship Center).
Amy, Silberberg. Marketing in adoption. Is advertising appropriate in adoption. If so, what kind and by who and where? (1999) (Unpublished manuscript on file with the Adoptive families of America, education and policy council).
Evan, Donaldson. Ethics in Adoption: challenges of today and the future. Anaheim Conference Summary. (1999) (Unpublished manuscript on file with the Donaldson Adoption institute).
Sarah, Gerstenzang, & Madelyn, Freundlich. Should we photo list waiting children? Adoption foundation, (2003). Web.
Internet adoption, Adoption policy. 2011. Web.
Cameroon Internet adoption scams growing. Our Adopt (2009). Web.