Under State Department policies, U.S. agencies that arrange international adoptions are subject to accreditation by the independent Council on Accreditation. Its president, Richard Klarberg, wants to tighten the standards for how the agencies screen and educate parents, notably in cases involving children with special needs.
“Our goal is to force or cajole the providers to demonstrate they are providing very intense training and preparation,” Klarberg said.
He acknowledged that screening is challenging.
“It’s sometimes very difficult for agencies to pick up on the signals that would lead them to believe, ‘Uh oh, this family is going to be abusive,”’ he said.
While the State Department helps process international adoptions, domestic adoptions are under the states’ jurisdiction. There are financial incentives for states to increase the number of adoptions out of their foster care systems, but often there’s little or no funding to support families who encounter difficulties afterward.
A leading think-tank, the Donaldson Adoption Institute, has issued reports in recent years making the case for expanding post-adoption support and tightening oversight of now-unregulated adoption transactions conducted via the Internet.
Yet the institute’s executive director, Adam Pertman, and some of his counterparts with other organizations are frustrated as many states, rather than increasing post-adoption support funding, are cutting it.
“Policymakers and politicians are great at paying lip service — always saying children are our most important resource,” Pertman said. “Where are the actions to support the words?”
In Washington state, there was an effort to respond substantively to Hana Williams’ death — namely the task force comprised of top child-welfare experts and advocates.
In May 2012, the task force issued recommendations, including a proposal for more rigorous screening and training of parents before they could complete any adoption, domestic or international.
The bill that emerged contained little of the recommendations’ substance. It proposed new procedures for tracking failed adoptions and said prospective adoptive parents should be questioned about their approach to child discipline — but not disqualified unless their planned practices were illegal. Despite its modest scope, the bill died.