Inter US State VS International Adoption article

Skip to main content










ProQuest



Recent Searches


Selected Itemsp

















My Research and Language Selection{












VHelp and support






















 All databases
Change databases


Global Newsstream


Basic Search


Advanced Search


Publications




























































































































































































































1Back to results
4
(previous record)


Document
 4 of 27
-
(next record)








Why is it easier to adopt a child from overseas than from another state? (Posted 2014-04-28 01:57:07): Congress should work to increase interstate rather than international adoptions.

Katz, Jeff. The Washington Post; Washington, D.C. [Washington, D.C]28 Apr 2014.

Publisher logo. Links to publisher website, opened in a new window.Publisher logo. Links to publisher website, opened in a new window.



Full text


Abstract/Details





Hide highlighting



Abstract


Translate
Abstract





























Because adopting a child from foster care is essentially free, most of the benefit of the tax credit goes to people adopting the most "expensive" and youngest children.








LEC



LEC




Full Text


Translate
Full text


























Turn on search term navigation








More than 100,000 American childrenare in foster care and waiting to be adopted, according to the federal Children's Bureau.

And, to our great shame as a nation, more than 23,000 children "aged out" of foster care in fiscal 2012, the most recent year for which data are available. A primary reason so many children leave foster care without a family is because it is virtually impossible in the United States to adopt a child from foster care across state lines.

There were only about 840 interstate adoptions in fiscal 2012, and a third of those were adoptions by grandparents and other relatives.

In contrast, 8,868 children crossed international borders to be adopted by U.S. parents that year, according to State Department data. If 10 times as many children are able to cross international boundaries as state boundaries, why is Congress focused on eliminating barriers to adopting from other countries?

The Children in Families First Act, championed by Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and supported by lawmakers as politically diverse as Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), is a response to the drastic reduction in international adoptions since standards dictated by the Hague Convention on Inter-Country Adoption took effect. (Such adoptions are down from 23,000 in 2004.) Those standards were put in place because of widespread abuse, including kidnapping, corruption and child trafficking in Guatemala, Cambodia, Romania, Vietnam, Ethi o pia, Uganda and other countries.

Barriers to adoption across state lines, however, largely result from bureaucracy and unintentional disincentives. Such barriers have been recognized for years; the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997 included a provision that penalizes states that "denied or delayed the placement of a child for adoption when an approved family is available outside of the jurisdiction."

Yet no state has been punished for violating that provision. And states often require families to wait one year after their home study has been completed before they are even allowed to look at a child in another state. Barriers to interstate adoption exist because the United States does not have one nationwide child welfare system; each state has its own. Each state's primary interest is the adoption of its residents. Each state expends resources to recruit and train prospective adoptive families, and it receives nothing in return if that family adopts from elsewhere. Effectively, if a New Jersey family adopts a child from New York, New York wins and New Jersey loses. This is an acute problem for children in metropolitan areas that straddle two or more states, such as New York City, Philadelphia, Washington or Chicago.

So why is Congress focusing on increasing adoptions of foreign children and not American children in foster care? Some reasons are clear: International adoption agencies and the parents looking to adopt overseas compose a powerful interest group.

Witness the federal adoption tax credit. The median cost of an international adoption is $28,000. A family with a modified adjusted gross income of up to $197,880 is eligible for a full tax credit (not a deduction) of $13,190 for expenses related to the adoption of a child. That credit is reduced as family income increases and ends for families with income greater than $237,880. Because adopting a child from foster care is essentially free, most of the benefit of the tax credit goes to people adopting the most "expensive" and youngest children.

Then there is the effect of age preference: Two-thirds of children adopted internationally are age 4 or younger. In contrast, the average child in foster care waiting to be adopted is almost 8 years old.

But the advantages of facilitating interstate adoptions don't stop at families: Every dollar spent helping a family adopt a child from foster care saves three dollars in social benefits. More important, it saves a child.

Children in foster care are powerless. If they are to be heard, adults must speak for them. Americans must tell Congress: If you want children in families first, then focus on the 100,000 Americans waiting in foster care for a permanent family. If you want children in families first, then remove the financial deterrents that encourage states to keep "their" families from adopting in other states. Enforce the interstate barrier provision of the Adoption and Safe Families Act. Enact legislation that would standardize home studies so they are valid across state lines, as driver's licenses are. Make it easier to adopt a child across the Potomac River than across the Pacific Ocean.

Use the power of the federal government to break down the barriers that keep kids from having what all human beings need and deserve: a family.

Credit: ;Jeff Katz


Word count: 782










LEC



LEC


(Copyright The Washington Post Company, Apr 28, 2014)















Search this database...Search this database...;Search button



Save as PDF

Cite


9Email


Print

PSave





















































Add to Selected items




























Related items ?






The children that Congress forgot
Katz, Jeff. The Washington Post; Washington, D.C. [Washington, D.C]28 Apr 2014: A.13.


Unionism Viewed Internationally
Pencavel, John. Journal of Labor Research; New York Vol. 26, Iss. 1,  (Winter 2005): 65-97.


Economic Incentives and Foster Child Adoption
Argys, Laura; Duncan, Brian. Demography; Silver Spring Vol. 50, Iss. 3,  (Jun 2013): 933-54.


The Relationship of Child Neglect and Physical Maltreatment to Placement Outcomes and Behavioral Adjustment in Children in Foster Care: A Canadian Perspective1
Marquis, Robyn A; Leschied, Alan W; Chiodo, Debbie; O'Neill, Arlene. Child Welfare; Arlington Vol. 87, Iss. 5,  (2008): 5-25.


ADOPTING FROM ABROAD; Parents May Face Perplexing Health Problems When They Bring Home Children From Other Countries: [FINAL Edition]
Rovner, Sandy. The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext); Washington, D.C. [Washington, D.C]04 Feb 1992: z12.
Show more related items





Search with indexing terms?





Subject
Foster care
Tax credits
Children & youth
Families & family life
Location
United States--US
Company/organization
Congress


Search









Chicago Public Library logo








Contact Us
Terms and Conditions
Privacy Policy
Cookie Policy

Cookie Preferences

Accessibility
Credits


Copyright © 2018 ProQuest LLC.