Advertisements
Advertisements
Hello,
I posted this before but the link did not work. Here is it in its entirety from Ethica, a Voice for Ethical Adoption.
[url]http://www.ethicanet.org/itemlist.php?pagestyle=itemlist[/url]
Marshall Islands
Several years ago, the Marshall Islands became a popular choice for adoptive parents. It is estimated that 500 children were placed for adoption from the Marshall Islands between 1996 and 1999, a significant number in a country whose population numbers only 56,429 according to recent World Book statistics. 39.1 percent of the population is below the age of 15. Concerns about adoption were highlighted in a report by Julianne M. Walsh.
During this time, the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) had no laws to regulate adoptions. As a result, reports indicate that adoption practices ranged from competent and ethical to those described by a high court judge as those of a "black market". Such practices reportedly included door-to-door solicitation for children, lack of legal representation for birth parents and inadequate legal notice to birth families.
In addition, the unique culture of the Marshall Islands and its long standing history of adoptions that are basically long-term guardianships was cause for concern. Adoptions between the Marshallese and the US families were to be open, with ongoing contact. While many families and agencies respected this requirement, others did not. There was growing concern that women on the Marshall Islands might believe that their children would return to the Marshall Islands and that they did not really understand the complete severance of legal ties.
In August of 1999, the RMI placed a moratorium on international adoptions, based on recommendations made by the government appointed task force. During the moratorium, the government was to enact legislation to address the adoption situation. They also invited a social worker to study adoptions and make legislative recommendations.
The social worker, Jini L. Roby, released her study on adoptions from the Marshall Islands earlier this year. The author studied 73 birthmothers in the RMI and her report contains troubling statistics about the way that overseas adoptions are viewed by Marshallese women. Adoptive parents and agencies are encouraged to read the report in full.
Because of a unique compact between the US and the RMI, Marshallese citizens are able to travel freely to the US without a visa. This meant that US citizens adopting from the Marshall Islands did not have to complete immigration processing for their children. On the other hand, such a lack of processing also caused concerns because the children were not "immigrants" and had not entered the US as the children of their US parents.
Additionally, this ability of RMI citizens to travel freely to the US meant that some adoption agencies began bringing Marshallese citizens to the US (often to Hawaii) to do "domestic" adoptions, thus circumventing the moratorium. Although the INS tried to enforce different rules for adopted children, they were unable to do so under the terms of the compact. The moratorium was lifted in January, 2001 without any new adoption regulations in place.
Discussions about adoption between US Citizens and the RMI continued, as did the immigration questions about adopted children. In the fall of 2002, the RMI government passed a new law on adoptions. Although there has been some question on whether it was actually passed, Ethica has confirmed with the US Department of State that the law did indeed pass in November of 2002.
The law contains several key provisions for adoptions. Adoptions must be completed in the High Court of the Marshall Islands. (Section 2). Section 10 of the act makes it unlawful for any person to solicit the birth parents of a child to place a child for adoption; to facilitate contact between the prospective adoptive parents and the child's birth parents prior to the signing of a consent by the birth parents to adoption and to "knowingly, encouraging, advising or facilitating a person to travel outside the Republic for purposes of placing that person's child or children, whether born or unborn, for adoption. The laws provides for criminal penalties for violation of the law.
Regardless of the passage of this law, some adoption agencies continue to bring Marshallese women to the US prior to birth for the purposes of adoption. Many argue that the law only applies to Marshallese citizens. Others acknowledge what the law says but believe that they are justified in continuing to do so because the Marshallese government has yet to establish an authority to enforce the law. It was annouced last week that the Central Authority is to be established by October 1st to govern adoptions and that it will begin enforcing the provisions of the law.
Whether or not the government of the RMI has been enforcing the law, it is clearly the intent of the Marshallese government that all adoptions should be occurring in the RMI, under the auspices of the High Court. Failure to do so shows a blatant disrespect toward the right of the Marshallese government to enact laws for the protection of its citizens. Adoption of another country's children is a privilege, not a right, and adoption agencies, attorneys and parents should do everything possible to work within the law of the country in question.
The compact between the US and RMI expires on September 30th of this year and adoption and immigration provisions have been an issue. On March 31, 2003 the US and RMI agreed to the immigration provisions of the compact. One of those provisions is that those coming to the US for the purposes of adoption cannot enter under the terms of the compact. The compact is now in the House and Senate for approval, and is expected to be signed prior to September 30th. Both the House and Senate versions of the bill include the following language regarding adoptions:
"Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, a person who is coming to the United States pursuant to an adoption outside the United States, or for the purpose of adoption in the United States, is ineligible for admission under the Compact and the Compact, as amended. This subsection shall apply to any person who is or was an applicant for admission to the United States on or after March 1, 2003, including any applicant for admission in removal proceedings (including appellate proceedings) on or after March 1, 2003, regardless of the date such proceedings were commenced. This subsection shall have no effect on the ability of the Government of the United States or any United States State or local government to commence or otherwise take any action against any person or entity who has violated any law relating to the adoption of any person."
Notice that this applies to people entering pursuant to the adoption (a child adopted in the RMI) and to people entering for the purpose of adoption (birth mothers coming to the US to have children and place them for adoption). Additionally, it applies from the date of March 1, 2003 which means that many of the birth mothers already in the US could be affected. It also contains the stipulation that action can be taken against those who have violated any adoption law.
Families are strongly encouraged to review all available materials before entering into adoption agreements for children of RMI citizens born in the United States. Families who have already entered into adoption agreements for children who may be impacted by the passage of the new compact may wish to seek competent legal advice as to the effects on their pending adoptions.
News articles on Marshall Islands Adoption:
08/13/03
08/10/03
Yokwe online news from the Marshall Islands
------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------
Ethica, Inc. 1116 W. 7th St. Columbia TN 38401 (931) 840-4565 ethica@ethicanet.org
------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------
All original site content 2003, by Ethica, Inc.
Web design by V3 Graphics
Site powered by Future Thru database and content-management system
Please report any problems with this site to the Webmaster.
I already posted this Ethica article on page 3 of the other Marshall Island thread: [url]http://forums.adoption.com/t121960,15,3.html[/url]
Unfortunately, nobody really seemed to care. In fact, I was accused of being stupid, spiteful, etc.
Hope you have better luck getting the word out, but I wouldn't count on it.
~ Shar
Advertisements
Shar,
I too hope that I have better luck! I am sorry that your posting of this information was viewed so negatively. As the mother of six, two of whom are adopted from the Marshall Islands, I have an open adoption and continue to work on aid projects for the Island. I initiated the "Baby Outreach" for the clinic on Ebeye and have enlisted the help of fellow adoptive (and non adoptive) parents in sending aid to the children (and families) that remain on the Island. I have tried very hard in the last almost six years to learn as much as I can about the country where my daughters were born. I also met with Mr. Roche and, contrary to what many of the posters on that thread said, we (my husband and I) felt that he was very open to sharing the positives in RMI adoptions. He did share the things that we were doing to make a difference, however small they may be, as well as the efforts of other adoptive parents. However, he also wanted to bring to light the problems inherent in some RMI adoptions. I have always felt that the more information I have, the better. Knowledge is power and this holds true for adoptive parents and children. Beyond that, I very much feel a vested interest in my children's birth country and I do want to see adoptions done ethically with the best interests of all parties being considered. The cultural differences and communication problems are very real issues in RMI adoptions. We lived in the Pacific in the past and know that there is a huge gap in understanding and that, often times, because of the culture, the door to exploitation is wide open. My feeling is, as adoptive parents, we should want to see the problems solved and adoptions continue. Problems can't be solved until they are talked about. And, yes, as some of the other posters pointed out, there are problems in many countries in regards to how their adoptions are carried out. However, I don't think this means we shouldn't do our utmost to solve the ones in the RMI.
Maryann
Shar -
I was unable to connect to the old thread and thought is was deleted. I did notice last weeks magazine carried an article on this subject. Some adoption agencies will strive to "do it right", and others will greedily capitalize on every legal loophole and provide the fodder for people to challenge the ethics of the entire program.
Potential adoptive parents provide the cash to make these foreign adoptions financially lucrative to agencies and lawyers, so they possess the leverage to keep them honest. Unfortunately, taking a "righteous stand" could cost them their so badly wanted family. Everyone wants change, but there are limits to the sacrifices people are willing to make individually to get there. Maryann certainly sounds like she is going above and beyond the spirit of honoring adoption customs of the Marshall Islands. Is she the rule, or the exception?
I just worry that in 20 years, the babies adopted today from foreign countries, are going to be asking us why we disregarded the lesson American adoptees from the closed adoption era here in our own country tried to teach us about the importance knowing ones biological roots and heritage.
Trish
"Maryann certainly sounds like she is going above and beyond the spirit of honoring adoption customs of the Marshall Islands. Is she the rule, or the exception?" ~ Patrisha
The rule, I hope :). I was very impressed with what Maryann had to say, and I agree... adoptive parents do possess the leverage to stop unethical practices by adoption agencies. No demand, no supply. Maryann, keep up the good fight!
~ Shar
Im glad to see this article! Sharon҅I dont think I saw your link in the other thread, if I did, I wish I had clicked on it then!
My question, the portion that says, ғThe laws provides for criminal penalties for violation of the law. Does that mean that adoptive parents that are aware of the law can also be penalized for adopting a child that was illegally placed?
Just wonderingԅseems if you stop the demand, the supply will eventually not be required, and illegal adoptions from RMI will stop.
After all, if someone honestly wanted to adopt an RMI child, they could do it legally in their country.
Advertisements
Here is an interesting article that follows on the Baltimore Sun stories...
[url]http://pacific.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2003/11/24/story1.html?page=1[/url]
any feed back from anyone?
Hi everyone! I hope that your Thanksgiving holiday is great. I was reading some of the posts and need some clarification. Can these adoptions be done? I am looking to sign up with Southern Adoptions and need to be sure that we are making the right choice. The last thing that we want to do is have an illegal adoption.
If the birthmothers come to Hawaii, is the adoption legal? Can we adopt the baby, or will there be problems?
Thank you for any help or suggestions that you can give us. We so want to start our adoption process and share our lives with a baby.
Thanks again, & have a great holiday!
Debbie
joedebbiearredondo@yahoo.com
Yes, it is now illegal to adopt a RMI baby born in Hawaii. It is illegal to bring a birth mother from the RMI to Hawaii for the sole purpose of having a baby to place for adoption. It is illegal according to RMI law. It is also illegal according to the compact agreement between the United States and the RMI. Both of these changes have also made it illegal to bring already born children to the US for the purposes of adoption. The only legal way to adopt an RMI child is to go through the INS process and complete the adoption in an RMI court. These are relatively new changes. In the past, children were able to be brought to the US for the purpose of adoption and pregnant birth moms were able to legally come to the US to give birth and place their baby for adoption. The new law makes both practices illegal. The compact also passed and addresses, and makes it illegal, to engage in either of these practices. I was told that Southern Adoptions was adhering to the new laws and no longer bringing over pregnant birth moms. Are you saying that they are still doing this and allowing families to sign up with them?
Maryann
Maryann, thanks for the information. SA has told me that adoption in Hawaii is legal (for a MI baby). I was told as long as they did not solicit the birthmother, that everything was legal. My husband and I were really getting ready to sign-up with them. Has anyone adopted from MI recently? and if so, how did you do it?
Thanks for all of your insight and advice.
Debbie
Advertisements
Maryann is right. It is a question of ethics and perception. If you understand Marshallese culture and the history of these 'types' of adoptions, most people will say that their is solicitation of the birthmothers. This is against the law in RMI and against the compact. But, we all know people that skirt the intent of the law by use of symantecs. At $20,000 to $30,000 an adoption that is a big incentive to rationlize your operations.
The RMI culture is about open adoption, about the needs of the clan not so much the needs of the child.
If you do go this route, think about what you will tell your child when he is old enough to understand morals and ethics and you have to explain to him or her just how questionable the ethics of his or her adoption was.
The simplest and more expensive way is to go down to RMI and adopt a child the way the government and the people want their children to be adopted.