Korean Adoption Law Revisions

From an email request I received from TRACK:

Dear petition signers,

How has the summer treated you?

TRACK has been busy here in Seoul keeping the government on its toes and working with the media to increase public awareness about adoption.

Here are two links.

This one is a link to our draft of the adoption law revisions. This is made by the coalition of the Gong-gam public interest lawyers, TRACK, ASK, KoRoot, and now the Mamma Mia single moms group. They are single moms who are raising their babies. Adoptees especially, please click on the link and follow the instructions to participate.

http://justicespeaking.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/adoptionlawrevision09.pdf

And if you haven’t seen it already, please take a look at the hour-long SBS program with English subtitles on adoption. It exposes how the agencies are treating us and why TRACK is fighting for our human rights.

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=E0DC2055C0B941CE

Coming up this fall will be one more public hearing! We heard today that there will be translation again! Hooray! (But English only — no French. BOooo!) We will also participate in the National Assembly audit again. This is a way to get information from the government and also have them examine the practices of the adoption-related agencies, such as the unwed mothers’ homes.

Hope you’re having a great day, wherever in the wide world you are.

Peace and happiness to you from Seoul!

—
TRACK 진실과 화해를 위한 해외입양인 모임

PayPal: truthreconcile@gmail.com
우리은행 1002-738-888382

http://www.adoptionjustice.com

Advertisements

Revisions to Korea Adoption Law

Check out the proposed content revisions to Korea’s Adoption Law. Thanks to Jane Jeong Trenka, TRACK and allies for all your hard work!

http://justicespeaking.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/adoptionlawrevision09.pdf

The first couple paragraphs:

Ms. Rami So, lawyer with Gong-Gam
Korean Public Interest Lawyers’Group, Gong-Gam
Last modified: July 23, 2009
*Please direct translation questions to Kelsey at khsmarch@gmail.com*

Objective: The Korean Public Interest Lawyers’Group, Gong-Gam, in collaboration with adoptee organizations TRACK and ASK, KoRoot, non-affiliated adoptees, single parents, and other interested parties in Korea and abroad is currently drafting abillto addressrevisions to adoption procedure law in Korea. In an effort to inform and include feedback from as many interested parties as possible during the revision process, an outline of the first draft is
provided below. Please understand that this is a “work in progress”and is continually undergoing revisionsas more recommendations and feedback are taken into account.

Feedback: This is an exciting yet crucial time in Korea to change the future of adoption practices (both domestic and intercountry) to ensure the best interests of the child. The contents of the revisions not only include amendments to adoption procedures, but also address adoptee rights related to post-adoption services and access to adoption records. If you have any comments, feedback and/or suggestions please email khsmarch@gmail.com
and your ideas will be passed on to Gong-Gam. Any and all opinionsand comments are welcome. As this is a time sensitiveproject, it is appreciated if you can send your feedback before SEPTEMBER 1st so that we can ensure that your thoughts are heard.

Read the entire draft outline here.

The Foreign Adopted Children’s Act (FACE) and Families for Orphans Act

Reposted with permission from Harlow’s Monkey:

If you are an adoptive parent, you are likely to have heard about these two pending legislative acts. Maybe you’ve even called your legislators and indicated your support. The Joint Council on International Children’s Services (JCICS) has been encouraging adoptive parents to sign a petition in support.

However, many of us do NOT support this legislation, and the thing I find interesting is that I have been contacted by adult adoptees from both sides of the international adoption debate, as well as adoptive parents and social workers asking me to post about these two legislative acts.

In particular, the FACE act would serve to demolish any and all of connections to our birth countries of origin. It would ERASE our histories, broaden the lies already in place through the amended birth certificates and in essence, creates more of a cloaked process. International adoptions, to be entirely ethical MUST be transparent.

I encourage all adoptive parents and adult adoptees to read the following response from Ethica regarding the Families for Orphans Act and the FACE.

Foreign Adopted Children’s Act (FACE):

Introduced in the Senate as S. 1359 (Senators Landrieu and Inhofe) and in the House as H.R. 3110 (Rep. Watson and Boozman): A bill to provide United States citizenship for children adopted from outside the United States, and for other purposes.

Ethica opposes passage of the FACE Act. Ethica believes the FACE Act, if passed, would harm adopted persons and their birth- and adoptive families in a number of ways, including:

• The bill is intended to eliminate the U.S. immigrant visa process, which means it eliminates the safeguards put in place to help ensure that children placed for adoption are legally in need of homes abroad
• By conferring citizenship retroactive to birth, Ethica believes the bill creates a legal fiction and diminishes adoptees’ birth history
• While eliminating the visa process may save adopting families a small amount of money toward the large costs of adopting, there is no guarantee that the Department of State will not charge similar or even higher fees for services it will provide under this bill.
• The bill may create additional hurdles and costs for adopted persons in the future as they attempt to claim benefits and privileges they are otherwise entitled to in their countries of birth
• Eligibility for adoption of a particular child is generally determined by the “competent authority” of the child’s country of origin. The bill does not address eligibility for adoption in countries that have not designated a competent authority
• The suitability of the adopting parent is based on the person’s ability to support the child and appropriate criminal background checks. The bill does not address existing federal requirements for homestudies of prospective adopting parents.
• Enacting this bill may stall adoptions in process: It is unclear how this bill will affect provisions of the Intercountry Adoption Act (which implemented the Hague Convention). Instead of speeding up processing by bypassing the visa system, confusion in interpretation and the development of new processing procedures, particularly for Hague countries, will likely create delays for adopting families and children.

Ethica believes that adoptees and other immigrants should be able to become President, but pursuing the right to presidency should be done in a way that does not erase personal histories.

Ethica also wholeheartedly agrees that citizenship procedures should be improved for adoptees, and believes that adoptees not covered under the Child Citizenship Act (including adopted persons who have been deported) should be conferred U.S. citizenship. However, this bill goes far beyond these measures and has the potential to hurt more than help.

Families for Orphans Act:

House Bill 3070 sponsored by Congresswoman Diane Watson (D-CA) and Congressman John Boozman (R-AR)
Senate Bill 1458 sponsored by Senators Mary L Landrieu (D-LA) and James Inhofe (R-OK)

A bill to encourage the development and implementation of a comprehensive, global strategy for the preservation and reunification of families and the provision of permanent parental care for orphans, and for other purposes.

Ethica opposes passage of the Families for Orphans Act. Here are some reasons why:

• The Families for Orphans Act, if passed, would give the United States unilateral power to develop global child welfare strategies by providing financial incentives for other countries (including through debt and trade relief) to send their children abroad for international adoption.
• Instead, the United States should be participating diplomatically with other nations in developing global child welfare strategies, for example, by finally ratifying the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child.
• The bill legalizes an overly broad definition of “orphan”, capturing countless numbers of children who already have loving families, potentially including, for example, children who reside in boarding schools away from their primary caregivers.
• This bill augments existing financial incentives for countries to favor international adoption by offering additional financial incentives, including technical assistance, grants, trade, and debt relief from the United States, which may sacrifice established child welfare principles by favoring international adoption over local solutions.
• Reunification efforts are “time-limited” which may cause original families to be unnecessarily separated from their children.
• Conflicts exist with various definitions in the bill. For example, long-term kinship and guardianship arrangements which are considered “permanent” care under the bill may simultaneously be considered long-term foster care arrangements, which are considered to be temporary care under the bill.
• The bill requires “cultural norms” to be taken into account, but only to the extent consistent with the purposes of the bill. The bill permits the United States then to essentially disregard a country’s cultural norms.

Ethica supports the strengthening of global child welfare systems. However, we believe that this would best be accomplished by working through existing frameworks of technical assistance and aid, ratifying the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child to demonstrate the commitment of the United States as a global partner in securing and upholding children’s basic rights, limiting the definition of orphans to those children truly in need of permanent caregivers with placement decisions made without the influence of money.

Ethica has the contact information for all the legislators at their website. Please go there now and read their full position statements.