Just some updates about IARs legal/licensing battles.
Tallahassee Democrat: Agency's practices scrutinized
Sun Sentinel: State subpoenas records from adoption agency
Miami Herald: State goes after records of adoptions
Sun Sentinel: Adoption inquiry alarms Costa Rica
{One thing that I pointed out BEFORE the Guatemalan Baby fiasco is mentioned in the article: "Even if IAR is correct in its assertion that private attorneys could have arranged the adoption of the Guatemalan children in Costa Rica, the attorneys likely would have encountered problems in obtaining immigration visas for the children from U.S. authorities in Costa Rica"}
Sun Sentinel: Springs adoption agency leased baby-raid house in Costa Rica
Editorial (Sun Sentinel): Foreign Process Needs Oversight
{I find this editorial a bit off. First off, PANI is still required to give its opinion on all direct adoptions. There were 4 adoptions in Costa Rica in 2002....8 in 2001 with the loophole. US Government Oversight *IS* there....but with so few adoptions what exactly is expected here? Adoptions didn't *slip through the cracks* as so many would like to think. If these loopholes HAD been there, we would have seen quite a few more adoptions prior to 2002. If IAR had not been questioned by PANI officials, I can guarantee you that the US Embassy would have red-flagged these adoptions and the children would have been denied Visas.}
Has anyone considered a class action lawsuit against IAR for lost referrals, lost money, lost families?
Posted by: John at December 30, 2003 08:22 AM