Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
Parenting
ParentingMothersSingle ParentsStep ParentsAdoptionTwinsSpankingChildren's Health
Pregnancy
PregnancyBreastfeeding
Marriage
MarriageDivorce
FamilyKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Family Forum / Parenting / Adoption / February 2006



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Stage is set for adoption law review (Iowa)

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Kathy - 25 Feb 2006 13:52 GMT
     Stage is set for adoption law review

     By Dan Gearino
     DES MOINES - State leaders are calling for greater scrutiny of
adoption practices, with some legislators saying they are troubled by
apparent shortcomings in Iowa law.

     The comments were in reaction to a series of reports published this
week by Iowa Lee Enterprises newspapers, including the Quad-City Times. The
four-day series examined a pattern of adoptions in Sioux City in which
pregnant women were relocated from across the country to give birth in Iowa
and place their children for adoption, sometimes to adoptive families from
outside the state.

     The series showed how such situations do not always work out as
planned, causing severe financial and emotional harm, even though the
practices are all legal.

     "It does give us concern as a state. We should really be looking at
how we can protect these individuals," said Sen. Amanda Ragan, D-Mason City,
who co-chairs the Senate Human Resources Committee, a panel that oversees
aspects of adoption regulation.

     She said a possible first step is to look at new rules for adoption
advertising that would require disclosure of where an adoption-service
provider is located and whether the service provider is licensed in its home
state.

     Several legislators have experience with adoption law or working with
adoption agencies. That includes Sen. Keith Kreiman, D-Bloomfield, a lawyer
who has handled adoption cases and is co-chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Committee. He said the news reports showed him a part of the adoption
industry he did not know existed.

     "The bottom line here is you have vulnerable women and vulnerable
prospective adoptive couples who are sometimes harmed by botched adoptions
and maybe a little bit questionable procedures. I don't think that's good
for anybody. And we can't forget that there's a little baby involved," he
said.

     Kreiman said the state may want to consider new rules for adoption
facilitators, which are businesses paid a fee to match pregnant women with
prospective adoptive parents. In most states, including Iowa, facilitators
are not required to have any special training or license. Facilitators based
outside Iowa were involved with some of the Sioux City adoptions.

     "Without regulation, it's a little bit wild and wooly out there,"
Kreiman said.

     Sen. Dave Mulder, R-Sioux Center, said he was troubled to learn about
the adoption practices and sees a need for legislative intervention.

     He is a former board member for the Orange City branch of Bethany
Christian Services, a nonprofit adoption agency.

     "I think what it's going to take is for a group of legislators to say,
'Hey! This is not right. We need to do something about it,'" Mulder said.

     He said the guiding light in adoption should be human interests, not
financial interests. He said that people who are concerned about adoption
should contact him to suggest specific ways to improve the process.

     House Speaker Christopher Rants, R-Sioux City, said he is going to
listen to his constituents to see if there is a desire for more legal
protection of people involved with adoptions. He said lawmakers need to
tread carefully and avoid rules that would discourage adoption.

     "It's a real delicate balancing act, and I think it's something we
will continue to struggle with," he said.

     Ragan agrees that legislators need to be careful, but she doubts there
will ever be an outcry from constituents, particularly people who placed
their children for adoption.

     "Many of these people are disenfranchised. . They're more concerned
with day-to-day needs. They're trying to survive," she said.

     Gov. Tom Vilsack, who was adopted as a child, issued a statement
calling for ongoing scrutiny of adoption laws. He is in Washington, D.C.,
for the National Governors Association conference.

     "Adoption is about making life the best choice for the child, birth
parents and adoptive parents. Government's role is to insure that the
process moves smoothly while safeguarding everyone's interests. As systems
change, lawmakers and regulators should review rules and regulations to
prevent bad outcomes," he said.
Kathy - 25 Feb 2006 15:05 GMT
adding link:
http://www.qctimes.net/articles/2006/02/25/news/local/doc43fffcacb4eae067064451.txt

>      Stage is set for adoption law review
Steve  White - 25 Feb 2006 15:52 GMT
>       Stage is set for adoption law review
>
>       By Dan Gearino
>       DES MOINES - State leaders are calling for greater scrutiny of
> adoption practices, with some legislators saying they are troubled by
> apparent shortcomings in Iowa law.

Combine this with open records and they'll have done their state a great
service -- regulating facilitators and making adoptees equal under the
law.

steve
yts - 25 Feb 2006 16:29 GMT
Looks like the legislatures in this state have finally opened there
eyes to the terrible misdeeds of facilitators, lawyers, dr's and those
involved in trafficking moms to relieve her of her baby. Helping
her...and those open adoptions are no better than the people that
create them.
Steve  White - 26 Feb 2006 05:17 GMT
> Looks like the legislatures in this state have finally opened there
> eyes to the terrible misdeeds of facilitators, lawyers, dr's and those
> involved in trafficking moms to relieve her of her baby. Helping
> her...and those open adoptions are no better than the people that
> create them.

Now, now: the lawyers and doctors are far better regulated than the
facilitators. You have state bar associations and medical boards that
provide oversight (how effective they are is always questioned).
Facilitators are regulated by no one, and it shows.

We don't need new laws against lawyers and docs -- we enforce the rules
we have. Facilitators need new laws and regulations.

steve
J. - 27 Feb 2006 14:57 GMT
Steve White wrote:

> We don't need new laws against lawyers and docs -- we enforce the rules
> we have. Facilitators need new laws and regulations.
>
> steve

I disagree, Steve, at least with respect to lawyers.

IMO, lawyers practicing adoption law are fine until they become
match-makers and facilitators themselves, at which point they should be
required to become licensed adoption agents.  The legal disciplinary
system is far too random and has no special expertise at all in
adoption regulation.  Too, there  is the ever-present
old-boys-and-girls-network to consider.  If local attorney regulators
bothered to examine adoption practices, rather than simply compliance
with the rules of professional conduct, they most likley would appoint
other adoption lawyers to review a case.  Not a good idea.

Frankly, the rules of professional conduct have been weakened steadily
over the last 20 years, as have the sanctions imposed. I see no reason
to believe that this trend will change.

J.
yts - 27 Feb 2006 23:21 GMT
> Steve White wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> J.
yts - 27 Feb 2006 23:27 GMT
> Steve White wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> J.

J,

You have that right, and they along with facilitators, have their hand
in the cookie jar, so to speak. Isn't it better to do the an adoption
without the middle man, after all the money earned can go right into
the lawyers, or doctors pockets..no middle man.

Professional conduct has weakened steadliy over the last twenty years,
I think its weakened ever since these "professionals" saw they could
scam a young woman out of her baby, and make a lot of money doing it.
Also, respresenting the adopters and the mother is totally unetheical
in law but it has been done far to many times, by lawyers, to save
money for a the adopters, and the lawyer....totally wrong.
Steve White - 28 Feb 2006 15:03 GMT
> Steve White wrote:
>
> > We don't need new laws against lawyers and docs -- we enforce the rules
> > we have. Facilitators need new laws and regulations.

> I disagree, Steve, at least with respect to lawyers.
>
> IMO, lawyers practicing adoption law are fine until they become
> match-makers and facilitators themselves, at which point they should
> be required to become licensed adoption agents.

I agree with that; my presumption was (and is) that lawyers should
practice law, and that adoption agencies should do adoptions. The two
shouldn't mix or switch.

Doctors should not be in the match-making business AT ALL.

> The legal disciplinary system is far too random and has no special
> expertise at all in adoption regulation.  Too, there  is the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> most likley would appoint other adoption lawyers to review a case.  
> Not a good idea.

Well as I noted, we need to enforce the rules we have. Usually what
happens when we don't enforce rules is that someone proposes new rules.
Those then aren't enforced, so we get more new rules.

> Frankly, the rules of professional conduct have been weakened steadily
> over the last 20 years, as have the sanctions imposed. I see no reason
> to believe that this trend will change.

True in most, if not all, professions. Again, we need to enforce the
rules we have.

I think we're in violent agreement  ;-)

steve
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.