JCICS has reported back after their presentation of their Standards of Practice to the Vietnam Ministry of Justice (MOJ), Ministry of Labor, Invalids and Social Affairs (MOLISA) and to the United States Embassy in Hanoi this week:
During numerous meetings with MOLISA and MOJ, their desire to implement the Hague Convention was reconfirmed. Joint Council understands that the MOJ, as part of aligning practices with Hague standards, will permit the continuation of adoption licenses for agencies receiving Hague accreditation by the U.S. Central Authority. While the timing and other specifics remain uncertain, Joint Council and the U.S. Department of State have requested clarification. In addition, Joint Council has strongly advocated for the following.
All adoptions in which a referral has been issued are permitted to continue through to the finalization of the adoption.
Recognizing that a list of Hague accredited agencies has been announced by the U.S. Department of State via the Uniform Notification Date (February 29, 2008), agencies accredited as of April 1, 2008 (the date the Convention goes into full effect in the United States) be used to determine the continuation of licensure by the Vietnam MOJ.
You can read the full report along with a clarification here.
14 Responses
In the past, the DoS has not required adoption agencies working with non-Hague countries to have Hague accreditation. There are agencies who had not even started the process as it was not required for Vietnam. Now they are being given 3 weeks’ notice, or potentially their clients are out of luck in Vietnam. Yet another well-planned, well-communicated policy change by professional diplomats??? Is this really how our government is supposed to function? They can take 90 days to process an I-600 but agencies are given “15 business days” to address the fact that they can no longer work in Vietnam? Up until now, I have been pretty calm but I’m now about to explode, as I’m sure anyone else with a non-Hague agency is. And it’s not only the “usual suspect” agencies caught up in this. No matter what your feelings on oversight, ethics, etc, nobody can say this Embassy is acting professionally or rationally.
JCICS is, basically, a membership group for adoption agencies. What it recommends may or may not be implemented. So, I wouldn’t worry overly much yet.
However, I agree, most assuredly, that no one can say the Embassy is acting professionally. You may be able to say you aren’t sure, but you can’t definitively say their behavior is fully appropriate. If you feel you can, then you may need to do a little more research on the matter.
We can only hope that our elected officials will get DoS and the Hanoi Embassy back on track in a timely fashion.
I am not sure if I am reading correctly. But, I believe that it is VN DOJ that is requiring Hague accreditation not the US Embassy. In reading all of the JCICS page, it clearly states that JCICS and US DOS are asking only for clarification to make sure they understand the VN DOJ position. I also do not believe that this is new news to agencies. I believe my agency new of this intent awhile ago. It is important to make sure that each of us asks our agency whether or not they are subscribing to the Hague accreditation process. So unless I am reading this incorrectly this is a requirement of VN not the US.
I am glad that the JCICS is backing Hague accreditation for its members. I believe that Hague accreditation has more guidelines than the JCICS standards. I believe this leveling of the field will benefit each family although it will initially make life harder for agencies. But again, I believe they have known this was coming.
The good news is that the DOJ in VN is beginning to use frameworks like the Hague which will make standardization easier in the future. Since the language will be standard across countries, we may be able to get a fee structure and have more protections for APs and children going forward.
L, I re-read the JCICS post and you’re right, it’s just a recommendation. However, my agency reported that the US Embassy itself sent a letter to the DIA last week recommending that they only work with Hague agencies. So it may be more than just JCICS taking this stand. Since the DoS has never required this in the past, it’s fairly contradictory and leaves agencies in the lurch. They are recommending a policy to a foreign government, that our own gov’t doesn’t officially require. I’m not sure if that is protocol or not.
E, very interesting, and surely unusual protocol, at the least.
I am sorry I was referring to Ministry of Justice (MOJ) when I wrote VN DOJ. Again, it is clear that the Ministry of Justice is the licensing entity for agencies in VN.
As a prospective adoptive parent with a dossier in VN for over 6 months now, I was disappointed to see that JCICS does not appear to be advocating that VN process all pending cases, including folks with dossiers in country, but only those cases in which referrals have been made. anyone have any more insight or info on this?
Lis
Lis – I feel the same way. This really surprised me. Even though we may not have referrals by 9/1 it doesn’t mean we have not invested extensive time, money and emotional attachment to our adoptions from Vietnam already.
– M
I think JCICS was referring to pending referrals from agencies that were not Hague accredited, if/when the VN MOJ decides to only license Hague accredited agencies. I don’t think they meant if the MOU is not resigned.
As I read the quote above it says,”MOLISA(Vietnamese Ministry of Labor, Invalids and Social Affairs) and MOJ(Vietnamese Ministry of Justice) reconfirmed their desire to implement the Hague Convention. Joint Council understands that the MOJ, as part of aligning practices with Hague standards, will permit the continuation of adoption licenses for agencies receiving Hague accreditation by the U.S. Central Authority.”
What that is saying is that Vietnam has intended to become party to the Hague, the MOLISA and the MOJ reconfirmed that. Logically, it would make sense only to continue lisences of agencies that are Hague accredited, since the agreement was not renewed. JCICS supports that position.
Does anyone know the timeframe involved if Vietnam does join the Hague? Our own gov. signed in 1994 (I think), but it wasn’t ratified until 2007. Were we following Hague guidelines this entire time or only after the ratification? Since this sounds like a licencing issue (ie….VN may potentially only allow Hague agencies to work in VN), does anyone know how long agencies are typically already licensed for (ie…does it expire every year or do they have a 5 year license) and how will that effect any non-Hague agencies if their license is not due to expire prior to any proposed changes-will there be a grandfathering? Also, anyone have any idea why Children’s Hope Intl. is not on the Hague list, that surprises me since they work with China which is a Hague country.
CHI has applied for Hague accredidation. Thier case is pending and is up for review soon.
I’m with CHI and I thionk it stems from some things that were done by a couple former employees, working with the Russia program. Those individuals are no longer with CHI as soon as they found out about their activities, but the damage had already been done.
Does anyone know why this was not mentioned at the recent JCICS meeting in Washington — or included in the Standard of Practices? It just seems so sudden. Someone, or some people, must have recently determined this was a way to scale back the number of agencies working in Vietnam…because if they truly wanted agencies to become Hague-accredited, why didn’t they give them any advance warning and a chance to do so? On the DoS’s own website, they state that agencies working in non-Hague countries do not have to be Hague-accredited. That statement is still on their site: http://travel.state.gov/family/adoption/implementation/implementation_
2806.html
Now, one Embassy has decided to change the rules. Even if you are in favor of this move, does it seem like proper gov’t protocol?
It’s the same last-minute policy change as what they did with the I-600’s. The intention *might* be good, but the methods leave much to be desired.
I must state again that my agency says this is the first they are hearing of it and the deadline is 3 weeks away. I can see that some of the “usual suspect” agencies are non-Hague. But they’re not the only ones. Was this a way to get them out of Vietnam, even tho some decent agencies might be thrown out too?
My agency does a high percentage of SN and older kid referrals. Yes, they are a small agency but their heart is in the right place and they have a long history of SN work in Vietnam. It just seems terribly unfair. Not only to us PAPs but to the kids they place and care for.