e-mail
(Before I get started… … I think the writing style of the Ukrainian adoption assessment report sucks. The sentences run on and on. I had to re-read the larger 70 and 80 words sentences several times to understand their meaning.)
Part 1 was the back story on why and how a 128 page assessment on Ukrainian adoption was produced. This assessment document can be found here.
I believe this document is why the SDA is focusing on domestic Ukrainian adoption. Here are some quotes from the assessment that I think support my belief.
Here is an introduction to the report and what the ISS team was evaluating.
It was not within our mandate to evaluate the quality of care in residential facilities [orphanages] or in other care arrangements, but simply to determine why children were there and what subsequently happened to them.
We emphasise first of all that the great majority of children in care have living parents. Against that background, we note that children placed in care, for whatever reason and at whatever age, will invariably remain in the care system throughout their childhood and adolescence, i.e. until they “age out” of the system, unless they are adopted.
In other words, little or no effort is made to secure a child’s return to his or her family under appropriate conditions.
Chapter 4 starts talking about domestic adoption. Turns out that domestic adoption was always suppose to be prioritized over international adoption. The ISS team didn’t find any proof that this happened.
Although the adoption system is ostensibly founded on the application of the “subsidiarity rule”, whereby domestic adoption takes precedence over adoption aboard, we find in practice that this is far from being the case in Ukraine.
During the unusually lengthy time (14 months) that a child who is declared adoptable can be considered for adoption only by Ukrainians, we have concluded that active attempts at both local/regional and central levels to secure such adoptions are almost totally lacking.
In reality, therefore, for the great majority of adoptable children and a sizeable majority of those finally adopted (domestically or aboard) the 14-month “delay” is more akin to an arbitrary waiting period than to a genuine opportunity for in-country adoptions.
To be continued with a recommendation (from the report) and some statistics…
Ukraine To Promote Domestic Adoptions
