The agency that started our adoption is not on the list!!! Whoohooo!!! There is some justice in this world, YEA :D

AND, I ALSO WANTED TO SAY THAT THE AGENCY THAT WAS OF SOOOOO MUCH HELP TO US, PICKING THE PIECES UP ...

IS ON THE LITS!!!

They are awesome, and I/we highly recommend them. Their contacts in Guatemala actually have been helping the courts find homes for children for many, many years.

I hope this list is a good sign, that the U.S. is working toward the April deadline to implementing the Hague. Maybe this summer or sooner, we can start the process for finding another child who needs a home!

I know it's wishful thinking but let's see what happens!

***CONGRATULATIONS TO ALL THE AGENCIES WHO MADE THE LIST***

And, thank you for all your hard work for the children.

------------------
Here is the info for the agency that is phenomenal!!!

Their director Jackie Semar, was actually chosen to go and inspect other agencies for accreditation. They facilitate adoptions in Guatemala and also many other counties where children need homes.

International Child Foundation
licensed 501c3 non-profit adoption agency & humanitarian organization

Toll Free 866 663-9058 ~ Phoenix 602 635-2448 ~ Tucson 520 531-9931 ~ Fax 760 682-2832

www.childfound.org
~ Hdqtrs 302 E. Suffolk Dr., Tucson AZ 85704-7131

Can anyone tell me what it means if your adoption agency is not on any of these lists? Would it affect our current adoption, which will not finish prior to April when the US is Hague compliant? Do I need to be concerned? Thanks.

I know that our agency is not hague accredited. They told me that they were not pursuing it. So will my case continue after April? We started our process back in August 2007

Thank God Sue Hedberg wasn't accredited!!!

Any adoption started before April 1, 2008 is not considered a Hague adoption. As such, your agency need not be Hague accredited.

Kevin
Guatadopt.com

I second that about International Child Foundation! Jackie is awesome and has been such a big help on our journey. I trust her completely and am so happy with the personal service!

What a DELIGHT to see that the agency accredidation process was not a rubber stamp endeavor. Our gov't actually recognized that someone like Sue Hedberg is a complete train wreck from top to fleece-covered bottom. Go USA!!

Thank you for the compliments! I want to share that agencies who are not on the list are not necessarily not going be accredited. Several agencies sent in documentation to COA late in the fall and not all of them have finished being reviewed. Those agencies will be posted as soon as their reviews are finished. So don't despair if your agency is not on the list and as Kevin mentioned, an agency does not have to be Hague to complete an adoption in process. It does need to be Hague to start one after Guatemala resumes international adoptions. Or -- it needs to be supervised by an agency that is Hague accredited. Agencies that are not on the list include of course those that did not pass muster. But please don't assume that anyone failed just because they are not on the list today, whether you like them or not. The accreditation process is entirely unbiased, and most established agencies have offended some families, whether they meant to or not. (You can't make everyone happy -- you can only try your best.) If you had a terrible experience your old agency may still be accredited -- because it depends on their practices demonstrating capacity to be compliant with the Hague Convention. The US is not fully Hague yet, and the real test will be the second review of the agency, when they have to prove that they fulfilled the requirements. And, now that families have a place to go to share their frustrations with agencies, it will be hard to hide a pattern of abuses.
Jackie at International Child

Something to keep in mind folks,

Some very good, ethical agencies who have done adoptions for 20 years or more in Guatemala, and who also do a lot of good in Guatemala (such as medical missions, etc.) are not going to be Hague accredited.

Why? Because they are small, non-profit agencies, and the accreditation process was very costly.

I know of several great agencies who will have to close down and their employees will be out of jobs, due to being small and non-profit.

anonymous

I am so thankful that Joanne Mitchell was not accredited either. I am so proud that FINALLY some organization that has the power to do something with this woman, has done so! Now, if only the State of SC would see things the same! Hopefully, since she is a "Guatemalan adoption specialist", her days in adoption are done. After all of the misery she has put families thru for years, it is good to see her "career" winding down!!

I'm curious what criteria they used for accreditation and why certain agencies were not accredited. When the final list is complete, Will these agencies not be allowed to continue adoptions through Guatemala? Thanks. Erik

unfortunately don't be so quick to assume that Joanne Mitchell was denied her accreditation or that she is gone from adoptions. she is not. she has actually quietly taken over another agency with programs in other countries. she and mary mooney have partnered also.

Erik,

You will have to be Hague accredited to continue adoptions with Guatemala in the future. If you are not, that agency can only conduct international adoptions in countries that are not part of the Hague treaty. At least that is my understanding.

Lilian

Erik:
Accreditation is based on a number of factors to ensure prevent the sales and trafficking of children under the guise of intercountry adoption. This includes, and is not limited to, sound financial procedures including full disclosure of fees to the PAPs from the initial interaction (first info package), this includes a refund policy. Also, an agency must have a grievance process with a timeline for written response back to PAP within 30 days. If grievances are made, the agency must document both the grievance and response in agency records (if there is a lawsuit or state licensure is jeopardized for some reason that also must be documented). Agencies must have a secure amont of money in the bank, insurances/bonding, etc. Additionally, they must be following appropriate practices for home studies, PAP and employee training, etc. It is important to remember the intent of the Hague--to prevent the sales and theft of children. On the sales side, this includes full disclosure in their records as to how money is spent. While this may sound like an audit, the Hague Evaluation itself is NOT an audit. However, an agency must have a CPA audit on a regular basis as well as conducting self-evaluation of their internal analysis of financial standing on a yearly basis. If it is a non-profit, this is the role of the board. For agency evaluation, the board is interviewed to verify their involvement in their relevant obligations. Also interviewed are clients for their feedback about how an agency has handled their case, including areas for improvement. Anyway, these are some of the criteria used to evaluation of an agency for Hague Accreditation. You can see that these standards, based on Hague principles, require accountability and transparency. Also, agencies have responsibility for the relationships they have with people in the field--i.e. facilitators. If you will recall, when Mary Bonn carried out her fraud many people just washed their hands and said that we NO LONGER deal with her. Well, under this system, agencies will not be so able to just wash off the dirt as there are guidelines for supervision. With these sorts of criteria, you can see the reason why Guatemala is far from Hague implementation--transparency is essential. Now, they too will have to develop such a system. A tall order, but a real possibility with the will of so many committed people. By the way, more agencies will be added to that list...this is not a final list and agency visits are ongoing. Consider this list the 'first round'. Another thing that should be considered "good news" is that the Department of State now has a way to catagorically manage complaints against agencies. When evaluators go into an agency, they have these complaints in hand. For me, a professional social worker, I am pleased to tell you that adoption "agency directors" can no longer just hang a shingle from their spare bedroom and claim to place children (i.e. Waiting Angels). Now there are professional criteria for involvement in adoptions. This is just a quick summary. I tell you all of these things while being speculative about the real TEETH of this thing. Time will tell. And, the reality is that agencies that deal with non-Hague countries can continue on in a non-accredited manner. This means Vietnam (for the time being), Ethiopia, etc. So, we are not done with international adoption fraud--just a new time and greater levels of accountability for specific countries (Hague countries). As I said, we'll have to wait and see about the TEETH of this...

When Guatemala reopens are they likely to limit adoptions to a few Hague accredited agencies at first? Or will the list of U.S. agencies able to operate there be determined, at the beginning, by which ones have relationships with orphanages in existance at the time? (I've read that some are questioning the ability of existing orphanges to remain open under the new law although I don't understand why.) It just seems kind of confusing to predict which of these accredited agencies (with experience in Guatemala) will actually be able to provide adoption services to U.S. families when Guatemala reopens.

You can learn how to get the criteria used for accreditation here: http://travel.state.gov/family/adoption/implementation/implementation_2912.html

If an agency is not accredited, it can no longer work on adoptions in Guatemala (or any other Hague-compliant country), once the Hague is fully implemented in the US in April.

To Erik,
That is a good question. Some agencies who do not get accredited, either by choice or because they do not meet the requirements, could conceivably work through another agency. This is not really encouraged, and most accredited agencies will steer away from doing this, because it makes the accredited agency responsible for ensuring that the supervised agency meets all the Hague requirements. It puts their accreditation at risk. Since it is a major endeavor to get accredited and quite costly, most agencies will not want to risk working with other agencies who are not Hague accredited.
The process is complicated and you can get information about it from the DOS website and the COA website. Many agencies are still in the process -- so it is not like there will ever be a truly final list, as it is possibly to apply for accreditation this year or next year, and so on.
Best,
Jackie
International Child

SO glad Joanne Mitchell of adoption partners was not on the list and hope she won't be. Many families have sent in letters to assure she does not get accreidation. She referred us to a child that was not really available and drug us through the mud , letting us hope for this child we recieved many pictures of. There is justice and I bleieve things are going to get much better in Guatemala with these safegaurds in place!

Compared to the list of agencies that applied for accredidation, this list seems short. Just how many agencies turned in their applications late?

It would be nice in the future if there were some sort of review or rating system for agencies. As many of us know, It's hard to really tell what kind of a situation you will encounter. I know that daycares, I know this isn't exactly relevant, have a star system in PA. At least it gives you something. Before this new accredidation, it was little more than a crapshoot.

Karenms1 said "And, the reality is that agencies that deal with non-Hague countries can continue on in a non-accredited manner. This means Vietnam (for the time being), Ethiopia, etc. So, we are not done with international adoption fraud--just a new time and greater levels of accountability for specific countries (Hague countries)."

I don't understand how they can continue adoptions with these non Hague contries. Wasn't that the reason everyone wanted Guatemala to be a Hague country otherwise adoptions with them would halt? Isn't the US only allowing adoptions with Hague contries?

Rebecca:
You're not the only one who finds this issue of Hague vs. Non-Hague confusing. The fact is that in the US, the Convention only applies to adoptions taking place between two different Hague countries. For example, US-China (and of course Guatemala). So, a US-Ethiopia adoption is not regulated under Hague criteria. Also, Vietnam...but Vietnam will cease to be a problem soon because the bilateral agreement between the US and Vietnam is expiring in September and both nations have been vocal about a need for a change. I predict that Vietnam will sign the Hague based on my research into the issue. However, that is just my prediction and whatever happens, the September deadline is serious. By the way, there are some agencies that decided not to become accredited (due to cost)and just focus on non-Hague countries. Of course, as mentioned above, there are small agencies that are not accredited and they will work as supervised providers under the umbrella of an accredited agency. I know, confusing. When it is all said and done, intercountry adoption is on the decline and at least 30% of the current agencies will not be financially feasible. Any agency that only focused on one country, i.e. Guatemala or Vietnam is in greatest jeopardy. Diversification is essential to long-term survival and intercountry adoption has hit a recession, of sorts. A final fact, the Department of State is promoting the Hague Convention--putting pressure on countries that are considered problem nations.

I would like to again reiterate that just because your agency is not on this list does NOT mean they are not or will not be accredited. As a lead evaluator, who reviewed over 15 agencies, there are several that I reviewed that were in pretty good shape, and are not on this list. There were others who required minor corrective action plans, who may require more time.

I would confirm what was said above regarding the current list of accredited agencies. There are about 150 agencies still in process and will be added to the list if they complete the process and are able to meet the standards. While there are only a few site visits left to be made, many agencies have been asked for additional material or to further develop or change their procedures to meet the Hague standards. I believe you will see additions to the list every week or two.
It is very possible, however, that not agencies will finish the process by April 1.

our agency is on the list-we did not get a referal before the deadline-does anybody know if we will get a referal soon?
Thanks, Robert

As Karenms1 describes it seems the Hague is a likely death knell for smaller, specialized agencies. I for one chose just such an agency for the expertise and contacts they had developed, and the more direct communication that occurred for each of our two adoptions. It makes me wonder about the future of international adoptions. Will it turn into only large "diversified" agencies where even with the Hague the clients feel completely removed from the processing of their case and at the mercy of the layers of bureaucracy, turnover of staff, etc. in their agency as well as both countries? In terms of transparency and ethics, and also length of time in process, this does not bode well in my view. I also imagine it will wind up costing everyone a good bit more money. Someone to convince me otherwise?

Sarah J in NY,
For what its worth our agency is a very small, non profit that is on the list of Hague accredited agencies. They gave great communication through out our process and have very close contact with the people they work with. The lawyer in Guatemala they work with is the only lawyer they have worked with there. She comes to different parts of the US where our agency is located, I think about 5 places, and visits with families. She asks for pictures to be sent to her so she can keep them in case the birth mother or foster family ever wants to see the child. Our agency worked very hard to become accredited. I hope this eases your mind somewhat. I have felt our agency to be ethical and transparent and the Hague accreditation is just a hoop they have had to jump thru in order to continue what they already have been doing.

Sarah & Jandc:
While I understand that you prefer the homey feeling of a small agency that specializes in a particular country/system, there are two ways to look at this. Larger agencies may seen less personalized, but the real strength is that a larger agency with miltiple programs can weather the storms (infamous intercountry adoption shifts) and change strategies with you when there are problems. There are pros and cons on both sides. When this is all said and done, the Hague Convention has created new standards of practice which is coinciding with some other dynamics beyond Guatemala--i.e. economic slow down here in the US, China's slower process placing children and Vietnam's serious problems with a September 08 deadline. These multiple factors are going to be the death of some small organizations. So unless an agency has a vibrant domestic adoption program OR has a Russia program (which is surging again), their ability to survive these lean times is precarious. The times of feast are over and as famine sets in there will be some unfortunate losses as well as celebrated defeats. Clearly there are some agencies that will be applauded as they close up shop.

can anyone tell us who JOANNE MITCHELL/ADOPTION PARTNERS is now working with and the new name of her agency she purchased so that others can watch out!

jandc, I am quite glad to hear that your good smaller agency is going to continue post-Hague. I wonder what country they will be working in?

karenms1, I think that conflating the positives of a good small agency with the word "homey" is quite unfair. To me it meant that they were dedicated to the country they were working in, had long term programs to help some of the kids who were not adoptable, they were able to carefully choose who they would work with, and they were invested in seeing improvements to the existing system's flaws. Why yes, a client would be subject to the vagaries of international adoption, should things slow or stop in that country and it could be a disaster for one's chance to adopt. Those were risks I was willing to take, and many others as well. I am still not convinced that the post Hague, larger agencies' advantages will lead to "better" (for both children and potential parents)adoption processing, and perhaps not even improved ethics and transparency.

One of the things I noted when reading through the list of approved agencies is how many of them I have heard fairly serious & numerous complaints about. I was surprised by some of the names on the list. In this time of shrinking international adoptions and changing procedures some of the worst actors will cease conducting business just by attrition, same as for some good agencies. I HOPE that the Hague will help weed out bad agencies, but will remain skeptical until the evidence is in.

Sarah: Skepticism is the ONLY way to proceed. The Hague is far from perfect and the casualties are yet to be seen. Good news is that some of the unscrupulous won't stay involved because it is no longer profitable. On the flip side, the slow downs that have taken place in Latin America as the result of previous adoption scandals and the Hague does not reflect well on previous reform efforts. I hope that Guatemala can become a case example of how a country can be reformed and remain a viable source of adoptable children. There is quite a journey ahead.

No one notes how the Hague works against what is best for children in terms of their development. Studies have shown conclusively that the more time a child spends in an institution without permanence, the more developmental damage is done to that child. And yet the bureaucrats who thought up the Hague have built in lots of delays because of the requirements to first seek birthfamily reunification, then a domestic placement, and only as a last resort, ICA. The Hague shows little regard to the developmental needs of children and consequently can only be deemed anti-child.

Karen - you say that "the Hague Convention has created new standards of practice" - yes it has - but by your own admission they are not perfect standards and have resulted in many children not having the chance of growing up in a family setting - and all because politicians and bureaucrats want to feel good about themselves as they backslap each other at the endless conventions/conferences in fancy hotels ...

truly the Hague Convention, in the REALITY of how it plays out in many many countries, is a fine example of throwing the baby out with the bathwater ...

tackling corruption is an important task, but the recent changes will not eliminate corruption or injustices. let's not stop with adoption reform - let's reform politics because of the corruption that happens in every country worldwide, or social work? I could go on and on - but I know that your mind is very firmly made up on this (as is mine) so we shall have to agree to disagree - please remember that this site is being read by many worried & anxious people who have been very personally affected by the issues that for some are an abstract debating point.

MK

For the commenters who mentioned Joanne Mitchell, she apparently did take over a new agency. I checked the recent 990 on Guidestar for "Adoption Resource Center," formerly of Pennsylvania. Joanne signed the tax form as the Director, and the office listed on the tax form is in Greenville, South Carolina. Those are indications that she is now operating under that agency name.

But the privations, or rather the hardships, of Lowood lessened first time lesbian teach video demonstration the whole school rose simultaneously, as if moved by a common sagtdbuzini