Stage is set for adoption law review (Iowa)
|
|
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
|
|
|