please help with referrals and information

Please remember to PM the original poster with any agency information! Thanks! :)

If anyone PM'd this poster with the information they were looking for, please PM me the same information. We are interested in a few agencies and looking for information on them (Gadney, adoption network law center)

It is generally very difficult to get domestic adoption agencies to accept you if you are over 45. The reason is that most birthmothers want the parents of their children to be young. And even when the birthmother has no preference, most domestic agencies won't place a newborn with a person over 50. In general, older parents have the best luck with domestic adoption if they find a birthmother on their own, and then use a social worker and attorney for the legal requirements. Adoptions through foster care are feasible for older parents, but very, very few of the available children are healthy infants. In most cases, they are older children and/or children with special needs. It is for these reasons that most older parents turn to international adoption. I, for example, adopted from China when I was 51. I am sorry that you had a bad experience with Vietnam. International adoption can be a wonderful way to form a family. You just have to be extremely careful in choosing an agency. Sharon

try jodi rutstein in florida. that is who we are consdiering using and she is jewish!

I have adopted domestically as an "older" parent - I was 46 when I adopted my daughter in Hawaii, in May. I was unable to adopt internationally because I am permanent resident and the some miserable U.S. immigration policies forbid that (sak9645, I know that you think that the current laws are just great and permanent residents should not be allowed to adopt - I disagree with you completely since the United States violates the Hague agreements. I cannot accept that :eek: ). International adoption has become more restrictive recently due to foreign country laws which can change on a whim and due to issues like child trafficking, kidnapping etc. Domestic seems a better choice, however, domestic agencies are often judgmental, they have "requirements" according to the personal opinions are the agency director or the assumed marketability of the adoptive parents. Many of them want their clients to be the happily married Christian couple in their mid-thirties - which excludes so many great prospective adoptive parents. I would not even bother with those guys, just ignore them. There are many alternatives out there! In my opinion, the answer for older parents, divorced/single parents, minority religions etc is attorneys. They will work with you if you are homestudy approved and not pony up all kind of "requirements" and pass judgments on you. I signed up with my Hawaiian attorney in January and had my daughter in my arms in May. Her finalization is tomorrow. Done! :dance: Please PM me if you would like to know the name of the Hawaiian attorney. She does not practice discrimination, she is ethical and candid and she finds babies in very reasonable times!

Wizard of Oz, you misunderstand what I have said on the topic. I believe that it is time for the entire immigration system in the U.S. to be reformed. Adoption is just one of many areas where change is needed. I want to see the U.S. become a Mecca for immigrants who truly share the values of our society and want to contribute to our strength, and not just benefit from our strength. I want to see the U.S. also become the embodiment of that poem on the Statue of Liberty, and truly serve as a haven for the victims of persecution. I want to make it EASIER, not harder, for qualified people, and especially people who intend to pursue U.S. citizenship, to obtain visas. And I want to make it easier and quicker for qualified and law abiding people who have legal permanent residence to become citizens. I want to see our government reform the screening process for all classes of visas, so that those committed to evil-doing won't get a foot in the door. I want to see our government track people who are granted temporary visas, so that they do not simply "disappear" into our country and live in a permanent status as illegal aliens. I support expanding immigration in rational ways, and then enforcing revised immigration laws aggressively, but fairly. I want to see a system put in place that gives new immigrants who do not come from an English speaking country or a country with Western ways free and convenient access to English lessons and life skills lessons, so that they can take their place in our society more easily, and not live on the margins of it. The Israeli Ulpans for immigrants have helped that country assimilate people from countries as diverse as Ethiopia, Russia, and the U.S.; there's no reason why we couldn't do something similar. I want to reform the system that brings in people who will do the work that Americans can't or don't want to do. I want to make sure that qualifiied people, who are truly needed, can gain entry easily. But I also want to make sure that well-qualified and hard-working Americans are not displaced from jobs, just because employers are trying to spend less, by paying immigrants less than American born workers. As to adoption, I want to see a system where the homestudy review and I-600A/I-800A process really does help to reduce the likelihood that a child will come into this country, only to be abused or relinquished. I want to see a system where the "orphan definition" is replaced by more rational criteria for determining a child's eligibility for immigration. Put in place to reduce the incidence of visa fraud, the orphan definition is no substitute for thorough, fair, and speedy adjudication of orphan petitions by people who understand foreign cultures and sensitivities. I want to see a system that does not discriminate against children who have had a legal and ethical adoption overseas, but who were not seen by all relevant parents before the decree was signed. There appears to be no evidence that these children, who come into the U.S. on IR-4 visas, are any more likely than others to be abandoned or relinquished in the U.S. There also appears to be no good reason for requiring a second adoption process in the U.S. before they are considered to have a "full and final adoption", or to make them pay and apply for a certificate of citizenship, when IR-3 children do not have this requirement. In addition, I want to see a system that is more clear and more fair with regard to American citizens who live and work overseas. In today's global environment, why should the children adopted by these families experience more difficulty in obtaining citizenship than those adopted by families staying in the U.S., as long as their adoptions were equally legal and ethical? I would like to see some serious research on the topic of whether adoption visas should be granted to the children of legal permanent residents in the U.S. The ban was initially created because of allegations of misuse of the visa process by legal permanent residents seeking to bring their relatives to the U.S., outside of the existing immigration process. I have absolutely NO problem with this change, if the U.S. decides that legal permanent residents will use the process appropriately, and that only children qualifying for adoption will be admitted. I have no problem with this change if there is evidence that the legal permanent residents are not using the process simply to get these children American citizenship and American benefits, then returning them to the parents that supposedly relinquished them overseas. I also have no problem with this change if there is evidence that broadening the right to an adoption visa is good public policy. I do believe that it is fair for U.S. citizens to have more privileges than people who do not intend to pursue U.S. citizenship. However, if our country determines that there are still way too many children overseas who need, but will not find, parents in their own country, then it could be considered good public policy to let legal permanent residents adopt them. On the other hand, given how backlogged the processing of adoptions is in our countries, I also believe that we should not be broadening the number of children admitted until we can be sure that we can process international adoptions speedily, but without sacrificing thorough investigation that focuses on whether a child was procured in a legal and ethical manner, and on whether the adoptive parents are qualified to adopt him/her. Please, please, do not assume that I am anti-immigration. My father, born in 1897, came to this country from what is now Belarus, but what was then Russia, as a boy, without his parents. He more than earned his U.S. citizenship. He worked, often seven days a week, as a furniture salesman until he was 70. Although he had no opportunities for formal education, he learned English to the point where he could read the New York Times and talk about current events. He had no brushes with the law. He married and raised children. He taught me to respect my religion and my heritage, to obey my parents, and to pursue education. My mother, though not an immigrant herself, was the child of Eastern European immigrants. My daughter from China was actually named after my mother's mother, also a beautiful young immigrant, but from Romania. My mother was one of 8 children of a poor tailor and his wife, who worked hard and never relied on government support. All eight of their children became model citizens. Two of my maternal grandparents' children became career U.S. military officers -- one doing intelligence work. Three, including my mother, became career teachers. One became a nurse anesthetist. One, who married a wealthy lawyer and did not need to work, had been a legal secretary early in her career and later was involved in charitable activities. And one, who was widowed young and wound up working in non-profit organizations, managed to raise two young boys to become New Jersey state troopers. My grandmother, long deceased, would have been very proud of the eight U.S. citizens she bore. And please do not say that I am opposed to legal permanent residents. Sometimes, it is hard for me to understand, as an American, why they do not want to seek American citizenship, but I certainly understand that seeking American citizenship probably means that they would have to relinquish their foreign citizenship. Most of the time, they have strong patriotic feelings about their country, but have to live abroad for various reasons. I also know that many legal permanent residents WANT to become citizens, but face a long wait and a tough process that makes adoption look like "a piece of cake". That's one of the things I'd like to see changed, with regard to our immigration laws. Legal permanent residents often do jobs that Americans don't want to do or don't know how to do. They fill jobs in hospitals and nursing homes. They are increasingly being sought for teaching positions in tough inner city schools. They have been valuable employees in the high-tech industry. And so much more. So I am not against these people. But I am saying that it is a long established practice in most countries to give preference to citizens in some matters. The U.S. government has to decide whether international adoption should be one of those areas. It may well be good public policy to change the current practice; I'm not going to take a stand one way or the other without some serious research. What I have said before, however, is that even if I were to support a change in U.S. policy on legal permanent residents wholeheartedly, I would still have to obey current U.S. law and to insist that others do so, as well. Unless a matter is so blatantly horrible that civil disobedience is justified, citizens of a country have the duty to support the laws of that country, though they can advocate, in a legal manner, for changes in the laws, something that I have done both professionally and personally in adoption, as well as in other areas. And, frankly, U.S. adoption and immigration law, while it has many flaws, is far more child- and family-friendly than it is in many countries. And the law IS evolving. As an example, some of the families coming home from Hague-ratifying countries with their newly adopted children are finding that they are getting citizenship certificates for their kids, even if only one parent traveled. So the camel's nose is under the tent, in respect to changing that aspect of current immigration policy, and I think we'll eventually see a more formal change occurring. Best wishes to you in all you do, but please be more careful in how you characterize people. Sharon

sak, I was impressed by your long list of reforms that you would like to see. Sorry that you characterize me as somebody who characterizes others but that's ok. At the end we have one common goal which is a reform in the immigrations system. You see to work for immigration and understand a lot about the topic. Your family are immigrants, well ... probably back then, immigration laws were not as crazy as they are today and also .. ther is just nothing like personal experience. You have to be an immigrant yourself to have an appreciation for the absuridyt of the system. You have to experience yourself what it is if for no real reason you cannot e.g. adopt from China. I found your list very informative. You obviously have given it a lot of thoughts, and I appreciate that.But to think about reforms and to come up with a long list is not enough. When something is wrong, we need to take concrete action to bring about a change. We cannot go out and advocate for every single thing, we need to pick one battle and follow through. Which of the problems in the laundry list have you taken upon yourself as your action item and taken concrete steps to change it? You mention that in the past, permanent residents abused adoption. Why is it then ethically/morally/legally right to collectively punish ALL permanent residents from ALL countries by not allowing ANY international adoption, not even by e.g. well know large American agencies? The consequences of such measures are devastating to certain (legal!) immigrant populations - but the politicians do not care a thing because the affected immigrant populations do not have electoral power as the (legal and illegal) immigration populations do! I get contacted almost every week by East Indian folks who want to adopt a child. I am very familiar with their situation and I totally empathize with them. If Indians would wait until they got through their H1B, green card and then through the Indian adoption process, about 12 (!!!) years would elapse until they had their child. So some of them choose to adopt domestically. ALL domestic adoptions for them are transracial without exception. How many folks in the American public are "open" to transracial adoption? A small percentage? Yes? And yet, you except all the Indians to be open to transracial adoption?! And then you also expect an American birthmother to choose a couple from a traditional Indian family, who has a foreign accent and who are devouted Hindus?! Do you think that the American immigration laws are doing justice to these people who immigrate to our country, work hard and oh yes, pay 10% of our taxes while constituting much less than 10% of the total population?! Heck, I don't. That's why I took action and contacted organizations, attorneys and senators - only to hear that the politicians and not interested in this specific problem because there is no gain for them. You say that you have no problem with permanent residents, a.k.a green card holders (you don't have to add "legal", they all are), adopting as long as they do not "simply to get these children American citizenship and American benefits, then returning them to the parents that supposedly relinquished them overseas." Is this what would happen is they adopted via large well known agencies e.g. Dillon, WACAP, Holt etc? No, it would not. Second - and what would prohibit AMERICAN CITIZENS from doing the same? Why can the same permanent resident, once a citizen, go ahead and adopt children and then "return them to the parents that supposedly relinquished them overseas." AH! So that could happen, right? And maybe that is happening, right? But we cannot prohibit ALL American citizens form adopting, right? But we need to punish somebody, so we punish all permanent residents, right? Wow. Ok, so now as we have agreed that there is a problem (permanent residents prohibited from adopting) and that there is a solution (permanent residents adopting via selected accredited U.S. agencies) , let us take concrete action. What steps can you and I take to bring about the desired change? Please let me know, I am interested in your suggestions and in collaborating with you. best wishes Jasmin