The
Hague Meetings, II
Shortly after Memorial Day, Mary Mooney again informed us through email that Acton Burnell had released draft regulations based on the comments it had received in mail and email and in person at the April meeting.
We at once went over to their site and downloaded the .PDF file, printed it out and read it.
It was obvious that we, and so many of the other parents through adoption who had written in had been heard, loud and clear. Regulations clearly addressed some of the most egregious and abusive practices.
They had scheduled another meeting, or rather series of meetings, for two days this time — June 18 and 19.
Naturally, we had to go.
But this was problematic. Dan’s father would be away for those two days, we learned. And his stepmother probably would not be available, either.
What would I do with Anguel during that time? With myself? During a time when Washington’s summer can be at its most beastly hot?
The more we talked about it, the more it made sense for just Daniel to go down for three nights. I had the time off work, and Anguel was between day care and preschool at the time, so Dan went down alone that Sunday.
Despite their importance, he says, the second set of meetings were more sparsely attended than the first one.
Perhaps this was not expected, as Acton Burnell had rented twice as much meeting space. Due to the thinner crowd, everyone now had their own large table all to themselves, and a little trouble making themselves heard in the large room without benefit of a microphone.
Absent this time were Thais Tepper, Mary Mooney, Dr. Jenista and quite a few of the others whom we had met in April. They sent comments by email, if they had any to send.
But Maureen Hogan, Leslie Margolies and Bill Pierce were there, as well as some new faces: John MacLean, author of the popular and informative Russian Adoption Handbook; and Albert Wei who though often associated with the adoptee-activist group Bastard Nation was their on his own behalf that day.
Most of what Dan had to say for both of us went to those portions of the regs that addressed the misbehavior and negligence of adoption agencies, features of stories we had heard from many people since our adoption — things like giving ridiculously short time limits to decide on referrals, sticking the clients with the burden of taking money to the foreign country instead of doing something like wiring it over, and imposing additional fees not specified in their contract afterwards.
Not things that had happened to us, to be sure, but things that firm lines needed to be drawn on.
What had come specifically from our experience was requirements for greater disclosure: of original language of foreign adoption laws and regulations, of originals of medical information, and of a statistical breakdown of how many adoptions had been completed by the agency in the past few years from which countries and how long they had taken.
Information such as this, had it been available in 1999, would have allowed us to better assess Building Blocks’ track record (or lack thereof), instead of relying on Denise’s claims and the dubious word of alleged clients.
When it came time to discuss photolistings, Dan also was careful to mention the recent scandals in Bulgaria and how they had involved “our former agency.”
Unlike the previous meeting, comments were made on sort of a running basis, giving the whole proceeding more the feel of a debate or conversation. Pierce even addressed the very intelligent and articulate Wei, as “the gentleman from Bastard Nation,” at one point, as if they were on the floor of the House of Representatives.
During the break Dan went over and introduced himself to John MacLean, who had been making some very level-headed comments. He was pleased to learn that MacLean (who has himself adopted from Perm) was already aware of what had happened to us.
It was a sure bet he would never say anything nice about Building Blocks, either, if anyone ever asked.
There was little else in the way of new disclosures relevant to BBAS and our experience, though the conference was somewhat scandalized when Barbara McCartney shared some information regarding highly questionable previous business associations of one agency owner. It was so sensitive that Acton Burnell decided, for legal reasons, not to put anything about it on the summary of the day’s activity on their website.
(In August 2002, it finally made headline news in New Jersey, resulting in the agency in question losing its license).
Since it’s not really part of our story, we won’t go into it here, but you may yet hear about it some other day.
It all served to illustrate what a rats’ nest international adoption was becoming, or had become (depending on how optimistic you are) and why these regs were so sorely needed.
Maureen Hogan told Dan that, during one of the breaks, she had heard a woman from the State Department’s Office of Children’s Issues tell Pierce that her agency had been surprised — “blindsided” — by the amount of pain and heartbreak that they had heard from parents.
They hadn’t expected it, she said, and they felt they had no choice but to be more proactive.
’Bout time, as far as we were concerned.
(Again, Acton Burnell summarized that day’s events on their website)