[PASSED] Child Welfare in Adoption

[The Liberal States of Russia]

OOC: You could go a different way and really fluffy up the title: "Child Welfare in Adoption", "Ban on Child-Selling", "Securing Adoption Processes", "Think of the Children Act", etc.

Why do all those titles make me think of the song "Fix You" by Coldplay?

[Sanctaria]

I anticipate one final draft on this before submission if any Ambassador have further suggestions.

[Alqania]

"The Queendom is still not satisfied with the anti-discrimination clause", Lord Raekevik reminded the chamber. "Perhaps..."

FORBIDS WAAA from establishing standards, protocols, and procedures that could reasonably be construed to be discriminatory (e.g. disallowing an intercountry adoption based on the prospective adopter's, or child's, nationality, race, gender, sexuality, or marital status), unless there are compelling practical reasons to do so;

"The Bears brought up an example or two of when nationality is problematic to include here. The Queendom categorically refuses to accept the term 'race' in reference to humans, which I take it is the intended meaning here. So we are left with 'gender, sexuality, or marital status' - is there any case where there would be compelling practical reasons to discriminate on those grounds in intercountry adoption? I do not believe there is."

[Sanctaria]

"The Queendom is still not satisfied with the anti-discrimination clause", Lord Raekevik reminded the chamber. "Perhaps..."

FORBIDS WAAA from establishing standards, protocols, and procedures that could reasonably be construed to be discriminatory (e.g. disallowing an intercountry adoption based on the prospective adopter's, or child's, nationality, race, gender, sexuality, or marital status), unless there are compelling practical reasons to do so;

"The Bears brought up an example or two of when nationality is problematic to include here. The Queendom categorically refuses to accept the term 'race' in reference to humans, which I take it is the intended meaning here. So we are left with 'gender, sexuality, or marital status' - is there any case where there would be compelling practical reasons to discriminate on those grounds in intercountry adoption? I do not believe there is."

The Queendom would do well to actually read the anti-discrimination clause before they decide to be unhappy with it.

What is listed within that clause are examples. The e.g. bit is clear in this regards. Whether or not it's included explicitly, the WAAA would still be forbidden from acting in a manner that could reasonably be deemed discriminatory, regardless of the manner or means.

[Alqania]

"The Queendom is still not satisfied with the anti-discrimination clause", Lord Raekevik reminded the chamber. "Perhaps..."



"The Bears brought up an example or two of when nationality is problematic to include here. The Queendom categorically refuses to accept the term 'race' in reference to humans, which I take it is the intended meaning here. So we are left with 'gender, sexuality, or marital status' - is there any case where there would be compelling practical reasons to discriminate on those grounds in intercountry adoption? I do not believe there is."

The Queendom would do well to actually read the anti-discrimination clause before they decide to be unhappy with it.

What is listed within that clause are examples. The e.g. bit is clear in this regards. Whether or not it's included explicitly, the WAAA would still be forbidden from acting in a manner that could reasonably be deemed discriminatory, regardless of the manner or means.

"With the 'compelling practical reasons' exemption, the clause is toothless."

EDIT:
"The word 'discriminatory' means that there is a difference made. If this clause is read to ban all discriminatory actions, then the WAAA would be prohibited from discriminating against unfit parents, against those that do not have the financial means to care for children and against sexual offenders. Surely, the clause cannot be intended to ban all discriminatory action?"

[Sanctaria]

The Queendom would do well to actually read the anti-discrimination clause before they decide to be unhappy with it.

What is listed within that clause are examples. The e.g. bit is clear in this regards. Whether or not it's included explicitly, the WAAA would still be forbidden from acting in a manner that could reasonably be deemed discriminatory, regardless of the manner or means.

"With the 'compelling practical reasons' exemption, the clause is toothless."

The Queendom places a good deal of trust in the gnomes to execute everything asked of them, except when it comes to them determining what is and is not a compelling practical purpose? That seems rather strange.

The addition of the compelling practical purpose language is to ensure a sense of uniformity in anti-discrimination laws passed by this body. By not adding it, I would be risking many undesirable situations arising which may put the welfare and wellbeing of children at question. It's not something I originally intended to add, as I had hoped "what could reasonable be construed as discriminatory" would suffice, but on the advice of others I felt it best to include it.

[Alqania]

"With the 'compelling practical reasons' exemption, the clause is toothless."

The Queendom places a good deal of trust in the gnomes to execute everything asked of them, except when it comes to them determining what is and is not a compelling practical purpose? That seems rather strange.

The addition of the compelling practical purpose language is to ensure a sense of uniformity in anti-discrimination laws passed by this body. By not adding it, I would be risking many undesirable situations arising which may put the welfare and wellbeing of children at question. It's not something I originally intended to add, as I had hoped "what could reasonable be construed as discriminatory" would suffice, but on the advice of others I felt it best to include it.

"So Your Excellency does not trust the gnomes to understand 'what could reasonably be construed as discriminatory'?" countered Lord Raekevik.

[Sanctaria]

"The word 'discriminatory' means that there is a difference made. If this clause is read to ban all discriminatory actions, then the WAAA would be prohibited from discriminating against unfit parents, against those that do not have the financial means to care for children and against sexual offenders. Surely, the clause cannot be intended to ban all discriminatory action?"

Incorrect. The clause says "what could reasonably be construed as discriminatory". Disallowing an adoption based on what you've described would not fall foul of this clause because of the language used. There is nothing reasonably discriminatory about forbidding adoption on those grounds.

"So Your Excellency does not trust the gnomes to understand 'what could reasonably be construed as discriminatory'?" countered Lord Raekevik.

I do most heartily. I'm just aiding them in making it extra clear.

[The Dark Star Republic]

OOC: I'm wondering about non-members. Obviously, under this proposal's definition, intercountry adoption is limited to 'between member nations'. What's not clear is how intercountry adoption between a member and a non-member is handled. It should be the case that the member retains the same basic obligations, irrespective of the WA's inability to regulate the other party; but I'm not sure that's presently reflected in the current language. At the very least, you might consider prohibiting countries from transferring children to non-member nations in order to evade the resolution's requirements.

Also, small point, but in formal legislative language the verb 'clarifies' shouldn't be really used in the way you have here. A clarifying statement is meant to be one that explains an extrinsic aspect to the legislation, not that reveals an intrinsic aspect. 'Mandates' or 'requires' or 'declares' would probably be more appropriate.

Otherwise this seems to be in fine shape!

[Sanctaria]

A (hopefully) final draft. I haven't checked the word count so I have no idea if it's over or under.

[The Dark Star Republic]

You're fine; you're about 500 characters under the limit.

[Sanctaria]

You're fine; you're about 500 characters under the limit.

Excellent, thanks. Thanks also for the title suggestion.

[Jarish Inyo]

Why should any nation be forced to allow people from other nations to adopt children? Why shouldn't a nation have their own requirements for foreigners to adopt children from their nation?

[Sanctaria]

Why should any nation be forced to allow people from other nations to adopt children? Why shouldn't a nation have their own requirements for foreigners to adopt children from their nation?

If the Ambassador points out where I'm forcing his country to allow people from other nations to adopt their children then I'll answer him.

[Jarish Inyo]

You refuse to answer why a nation should not have requirements their own requirements for foreigners to adopt?

I admit I misread apart of the proposal that lead me to believe that it would require that nations allow international adoptions.

Why would any nation allow an international agency to regulate any part of their adoption policies?

In my opinion, no international agency could properly oversee and give each individual adoption the proper care and attention that it should receive.

[Sanctaria]

You refuse to answer why a nation should not have requirements their own requirements for foreigners to adopt?

I admit I misread apart of the proposal that lead me to believe that it would require that nations allow international adoptions.

Why would any nation allow an international agency to regulate any part of their adoption policies?

In my opinion, no international agency could properly oversee and give each individual adoption the proper care and attention that it should receive.

The Ambassador is seriously misrepresenting the proposal which is unfortunate.

As the proposal itself sets forth, it aims to cut down on the bureaucracy of intercountry adoptions which is often bogged down in red tape, paperwork and other often unnecessary minutiae. This standardises the regulations by establish a body who sets procedures that all nations must abide by and then it oversees intercountry adoptions.

The actual intercountry adoptions are handled by National Adoption Boards who operate using the procedures set forward by WAA. So it's still a national agency that actually deals with the individual adoption.

And a nation should allow an international agency to regulate their international adoptions. It makes for good governance and it's effective. This proposal doesn't effect the domestic adoption industry, which is rightfully not under the purview of the World Assembly. Intercountry adoptions amongst World Assembly nations is something that does.

[Jarish Inyo]

I have not seriously misrepresenting the proposal. You want to create an international agency to tell nations what their adoption policy is. You claim that any nations adoption policy is unnecessary. Yet you do not explain why a nation's policies are unnecessary.

No nation should allow an international agency to regulate their international adoptions. It does not makes for good governance and it's not effective. International adoptions amongst World Assembly nations is not under the purview of the WA. Adoptions is not handled by the state, but private agencies.

What makes you think that nations need an international agency to oversee adoptions? Need specific reasons. Not this 'bogged down in red tape, paperwork and other often unnecessary minutiae. And standardization' statement. Why should 17,000 nations hand over part of their adoption policy to an international agency. Why shouldn't a nation have their own requirements for foreigners to adopt children form their nation?

I do not see any explanation in this proposal on why it is necessary. All I see is that you are frustrated with nations having differing rules and regulations regarding international adoption. You being frustrated is not a reason to create another WA agency and to have nations give up any part of their adoption policy. So, point out why a nation having it's own requirements for adoption is a bad thing other then it slowing down the adoption procedures in your opinion.

[Sanctaria]

I have not seriously misrepresenting the proposal. You want to create an international agency to tell nations what their adoption policy is. You claim that any nations adoption policy is unnecessary. Yet you do not explain why a nation's policies are unnecessary.

The aim of the proposal is to create a World Assembly Adoption Authority to consolidate the adoption procedures of its 17,000 member nation states, yes. It shouldn't require explaining why this would be a nightmare for prospective parents who wish to adopt, nor to children who are not able to be adopted within their own country.

No nation should allow an international agency to regulate their international adoptions. It does not makes for good governance and it's not effective. International adoptions amongst World Assembly nations is not under the purview of the WA. Adoptions is not handled by the state, but private agencies.

Why shouldn't a nation allow an international body to regulate something international? You're just repeating what I said but in the negative, which is a neat verbal trick but in writing makes an Ambassador look a bit dense. And no, under this proposal intercounty adoptions will not be handled by private agencies, they will be handled by the state.

What makes you think that nations need an international agency to oversee adoptions? Need specific reasons. Not this 'bogged down in red tape, paperwork and other often unnecessary minutiae. And standardization' statement. Why should 17,000 nations hand over part of their adoption policy to an international agency. Why shouldn't a nation have their own requirements for foreigners to adopt children form their nation?

An international body such as the World Assembly should over intercountry adoptions. It's an international practice that involves the transport and care of the most vulnerable in any society - children. In cold economical parlance, intercountry adoption is a business and its commodities are valuable, to not regulate or oversee it would be rather amiss of the World Assembly.

And this resolution doesn't stop a nation from forbidding those from other countries to adopt from within their nation. They are not required to permit intercountry adoptions.

I do not see any explanation in this proposal on why it is necessary. All I see is that your are frustrated with nations having differing rules and regulations regarding international adoption. You being frustrated is not a reason to create another WA agency and to have nations give up any part of their adoption policy. So, point out why a nation having it's own requirements for adoption is a bad thing other then it slowing down the adoption procedures in your opinion.

It's necessary because unregulated intercountry adoption breeds child trafficking and abuse. The protection of children through a uniform set of standards overseen by the World Assembly is the least that can be done and this proposal sets out to do exactly that. Nations are free to continue to run their own domestic adoption policies, but if they chose to engage in intercountry adoption then they must be subject to regulations and procedures, applied equally. The World Assembly is in a perfect situation to do that and it should, since this Assembly has already committed to the protection of children. This is a logical extension in that mission.

[Sanctaria]

This had been edited and submitted.

The submitted version is below.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Child Welfare in Adoption
A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.

Category: Social Justice | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Sanctaria

Description: The General Assembly,

BELIEVING that intercountry adoption can be beneficial to nations experiencing difficulty with their internal rate of adoption and to children in need of a loving home,

FRUSTRATED with the reality that member nations each have differing rules and regulations regarding intercountry adoption,

CONCERNED that such a myriad of bureaucratic minutiae poses a danger to the welfare of children involved in intercountry adoptions, and unnecessarily increases the risk of child abuse and trafficking,

HOPEFUL that the consolidation of these varied rules and regulations will aid in the safekeeping of vulnerable children, as well as break down barriers to intercountry adoption,

Hereby

DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution, the following:

1. child: an individual under the threshold of majority in both the country of origin and the recipient country,
   
2. prospective adopter: a party who is seeking to adopt a child;

STRONGLY ENCOURAGES member nations to permit intercountry adoption;

DEMANDS that, should one not already exist, each member nation that permits intercountry adoption establish a state or semi-state agency, to be known as National Adoption Boards, which shall have the following duties:

1. to maintain a register of children available within that nation for adoption,
   
2. to work with and vet prospective adopters in that nation, and
   
3. to liaise with National Adoption Boards in other member nations during intercountry adoption processes;

DECREES that any intercountry adoption between member nations must be conducted between National Adoption Boards, and that no transfer of children shall take place until the intercountry adoption is finalised and confirmed;

REQUIRES National Adoption Boards to consider the welfare and wishes of all children available for adoption, in particular with determining if intercountry adoption is appropriate for each individual child;

CREATES the World Assembly Adoption Authority (WAAA) to establish and implement a stringent and rigorous uniform code of rules and regulations regarding intercountry adoption;

MANDATES that all National Adoption Boards be member organisations of WAAA and that they adhere to all these regulations, procedures, and standards established;

DECLARES that no National Adoption Board may establish regulations, procedures, protocols, or standards regarding intercountry adoption that are contradictory or additional to those established by WAAA;

FORBIDS WAAA from establishing standards, protocols, and procedures that could reasonably be construed to be discriminatory (e.g. disallowing an intercountry adoption based on the prospective adopter's, or child's, nationality, race, gender, sexuality, or marital status), unless there are compelling practical reasons to do so;

PROSCRIBES the transfer of children by member nations to non-member nations in an effort to circumvent any facet of this resolution;

OUTLAWS the practice of buying children, in which financial or in-kind payments are exchanged to ensure an individual receives a child, however;

ACKNOWLEDGES that, in the case of adoption processes, some reasonable fees may be charged by National Adoption Boards, and/or their domestic affiliates, for expenses incurred during the adoption process.

[Jarish Inyo]

I have not seriously misrepresenting the proposal. You want to create an international agency to tell nations what their adoption policy is. You claim that any nations adoption policy is unnecessary. Yet you do not explain why a nation's policies are unnecessary.

The aim of the proposal is to create a World Assembly Adoption Authority to consolidate the adoption procedures of its 17,000 member nation states, yes. It shouldn't require explaining why this would be a nightmare for prospective parents who wish to adopt, nor to children who are not able to be adopted within their own country.

Yes, this does require an explanation. Why should prospective parents not have to meet a nations requirements from which they have chosen to adopt from? Why are the prospective parents not adopting from their own nation?

No nation should allow an international agency to regulate their international adoptions. It does not makes for good governance and it's not effective. International adoptions amongst World Assembly nations is not under the purview of the WA. Adoptions is not handled by the state, but private agencies.

Why shouldn't a nation allow an international body to regulate something international? You're just repeating what I said but in the negative, which is a neat verbal trick but in writing makes an Ambassador look a bit dense. And no, under this proposal intercounty adoptions will not be handled by private agencies, they will be handled by the state.

You do not state in this proposal that international adoptions are handled by the state only. And why shouldn't private agencies be allowed to handle international adoptions? Why should a nation set up a governmental department just for international adoption when there are agencies already set up for adoptions. Wouldn't the time it would take to set up such a department slow down the process of international adoptions?

What makes you think that nations need an international agency to oversee adoptions? Need specific reasons. Not this 'bogged down in red tape, paperwork and other often unnecessary minutiae. And standardization' statement. Why should 17,000 nations hand over part of their adoption policy to an international agency. Why shouldn't a nation have their own requirements for foreigners to adopt children form their nation?

An international body such as the World Assembly should over intercountry adoptions. It's an international practice that involves the transport and care of the most vulnerable in any society - children. In cold economical parlance, intercountry adoption is a business and its commodities are valuable, to not regulate or oversee it would be rather amiss of the World Assembly.

Why should it oversee it? Why would it be amiss for the WA not to regulate or oversee? What makes you think that a nation is incapable of regulating and overseeing an adoption? Even in cold economical parlance, as you put it, what makes the child any more valuable then any other commodity? The WA doesn't regulate every commodity that is traded internationally. And staying in the economical parlance, doesn't an individual nation have the right regulate who can receive said commodity?

And this resolution doesn't stop a nation from forbidding those from other countries to adopt from within their nation. They are not required to permit intercountry adoptions.

I do not see any explanation in this proposal on why it is necessary. All I see is that your are frustrated with nations having differing rules and regulations regarding international adoption. You being frustrated is not a reason to create another WA agency and to have nations give up any part of their adoption policy. So, point out why a nation having it's own requirements for adoption is a bad thing other then it slowing down the adoption procedures in your opinion.

It's necessary because unregulated intercountry adoption breeds child trafficking and abuse. The protection of children through a uniform set of standards overseen by the World Assembly is the least that can be done and this proposal sets out to do exactly that. Nations are free to continue to run their own domestic adoption policies, but if they chose to engage in intercountry adoption then they must be subject to regulations and procedures, applied equally. The World Assembly is in a perfect situation to do that and it should, since this Assembly has already committed to the protection of children. This is a logical extension in that mission.

What evidence can you provide that shows that without an international agency that international adoption breeds child trafficking and abuse? How is having an uniform set of standards through the adoption process stopping child trafficking and abuse? Is the WA gonna send someone to check up on the child to ensure abuse is not happening? Why should a nation be subject to international regulation on adoption? Again, this proposal does not explain why it is need. What if the international agency's policies are less stringent then a nations domestic adoption policies? Why should a foreigner be able to adopt a child easier then a native? The WA is not in the perfect situation to do that. Nor should it. Nor is this a logical extension of the WA protecting children. This proposal, as written, has nothing to do with protecting children. It's about streamlining the process in which prospective foreign parents can about.

Nothing you have stated have stated why individual nations can not handle international adoptions. What makes you think that a nation are not doing their best to ensure that child trafficking and abuse is not going on during the international adoption process? And again, why should you being frustrated with a nation having and ensuring that prospective parents meet certain criteria for adoption requires international regulations and a new agency?

[Araraukar]

The Ambassador is seriously misrepresenting the proposal which is unfortunate.

To be fair, they're giving you good practice for whenever some ambassador decides to repeal this, should it make it through the vote.

[Sanctaria]

The Ambassador is seriously misrepresenting the proposal which is unfortunate.

To be fair, they're giving you good practice for whenever some ambassador decides to repeal this, should it make it through the vote.

It's a very light proposal with very limited effects on national sovereignty. I couldn't imagine why there'd be such opposition.

[Araraukar]

It's a very light proposal with very limited effects on national sovereignty. I couldn't imagine why there'd be such opposition.

Some ambassadors seem intent on repealing everything, whether or not it's relevant. Don't look at me, I haven't got a problem with it...

DECREES that any intercountry adoption between member nations must be conducted between National Adoption Boards, and that no transfer of children shall take place until the intercountry adoption is finalised and confirmed;

...except that this might be difficult if there was a war that the children needed to be out of quickly, but then I'm fairly certain that war exceptions can be made while still obeying the letter of the law.

[Sanctaria]

DECREES that any intercountry adoption between member nations must be conducted between National Adoption Boards, and that no transfer of children shall take place until the intercountry adoption is finalised and confirmed;

...except that this might be difficult if there was a war that the children needed to be out of quickly, but then I'm fairly certain that war exceptions can be made while still obeying the letter of the law.

I'm not sure what a war has got to do with intercountry adoptions. At most it's some sort of intercountry fostering, otherwise it'd most widely be interpreted as some sort of refugee thing. Adoption is usually final meaning the child wouldn't be reunited with his/her birth family once a war is over.

Some ambassadors seem intent on repealing everything, whether or not it's relevant. Don't look at me, I haven't got a problem with it...

Ah, yes. It's just the way you said:

should it make it through the vote.

Made me think you thought it didn't stand a chance.

[Jarish Inyo]

[/quote]
It's a very light proposal with very limited effects on national sovereignty. I couldn't imagine why there'd be such opposition.[/quote]

It doesn't have limited effects on national sovereignty. This proposal doesn't protect children as the author claims. The author refuses to give a logical and reasonable reason why nations can not self regulate their international adoptions policies without an international agency.

I've not seen one good argument in this thread that makes this proposal good for anything but taking away a nations right to make their own regulations for foreigners to adopt. All I have seen is this is a way to streamline the adoption process for foreigners to adopt. The fact that the author is frustrated that each nation has its own regulations and requirements for adoption does not make this a good proposal or an international concern.