[PASSED] Child Welfare in Adoption

[Sanctaria]

"I'm arguing for less text, not more:

UNDERSTANDING that many who desire children are not necessarily able to procreate and that adoption may be their last resort,

"Don't see why you need to acknowledge this at all: it is privileging one reason for adoption above others.

BELIEVING that intercountry adoption can be beneficial to individuals who wish to adopt children and to nations experiencing difficulty with their internal rate of adoption,

"Opens up the meaning without changing the sense of the overall line."

~ Inky Fungschlammer
3,205 pickles unloaded

I will take it under advisement, but I like to write in a flowerly style. I don't believe this is an issue, especially considering it's the preamble, and forgive me for not pandering to someone who isn't even a voting member of this body.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I will take it under advisement, but I like to write in a flowerly style. I don't believe this is an issue, especially considering it's the preamble, and forgive me for not pandering to someone who isn't even a voting member of this body.

"Our nation will be perfectly happy to rejoin this organization once the Secretariat displays a willingness to hold themselves even the tiniest bit accountable for their risible incompetence, but until then, we are as entitled to lobby here as Observers as are the nations of Grays Harbor, C.D.S.P., Araraukar, Bears Armed, The Federal Republic, or any of the other many observers in the long tradition of this organization."

~ Inky Fungschlammer
3,849 pickles unloaded

[Sanctaria]

I will take it under advisement, but I like to write in a flowerly style. I don't believe this is an issue, especially considering it's the preamble, and forgive me for not pandering to someone who isn't even a voting member of this body.

"Our nation will be perfectly happy to rejoin this organization once the Secretariat displays a willingness to hold themselves even the tiniest bit accountable for their risible incompetence, but until then, we are as entitled to lobby here as Observers as are the nations of Grays Harbor, C.D.S.P., Araraukar, Bears Armed, The Federal Republic, or any of the other many observers in the long tradition of this organization."

I have absolutely zero problems with observers attempting to lobby, and indeed I generally do welcome it, but I hope they don't expect me to go out of my way to write and rewrite minutiae and non-binding parts of my proposals to appease them - especially when they neither have a say in, nor are they effected by, the proposal itself.

There's also something biting about a nation who can't even be bothered to have a full-time Ambassador to the World Assembly, and one who degrades the body at every opportunity, decrying a sentence in my preamble which apparently privileges some who want to adopt kids over others, thereby bringing this very Assembly into disrepute.

As I said, I'll take your comments under advisement, and it may even be that I end up agreeing to your request, but please don't keep pushing it.

[Grays Harbor]

We are voting members of this body, just not with the Imperial capitol nation.

[Sanctaria]

We are voting members of this body, just not with the Imperial capitol nation.

I never claimed otherwise, my friend.

To clarify, I suppose, I welcome suggestions most heartily, and will accept any and all that are useful and beneficial. I will not, however, edit my proposal blindly with every amendment offered, especially those offered by lobbyists.

But I do welcome suggestions. It is in this delegation's interests to have the best proposal on the issue possible.

[The Eternal Kawaii]

Take 2.

We note the changes made to the text, and drop our objection to it.

[Bears Armed]

"We are studying the present draft, and expect to have our initial comments about it ready within a day or so."

Artorrios o SouthWoods,
ChairBear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly.

[Christian Democrats]

Right now, I would not vote for this proposal because I would not support international adoption regulations forbidding adoption agencies from taking gender, marital status, and sexual orientation into account.

Also, I think the term "crossnational" ought to be used instead of "intercountry."

[Sanctaria]

Right now, I would not vote for this proposal because I would not support international adoption regulations forbidding adoption agencies from taking gender, marital status, and sexual orientation into account.

This is unsuprising. The CoCR already forbids discrimination on these grounds, this is simply underscoring this.

Also, I think the term "crossnational" ought to be used instead of "intercountry."

As has already been explained, intercountry is the correct and appropriate term.

[Chester Pearson]

Right now, I would not vote for this proposal because I would not support international adoption regulations forbidding adoption agencies from taking gender, marital status, and sexual orientation into account.

Really? You are going to bring homophobia, and gay rights into this now?

Surprised? Me neither....

[Christian Democrats]

Right now, I would not vote for this proposal because I would not support international adoption regulations forbidding adoption agencies from taking gender, marital status, and sexual orientation into account.

This is unsuprising. The CoCR already forbids discrimination on these grounds, this is simply underscoring this.

Resolution 35, the Charter of Civil Rights, prohibits discrimination by governments on the grounds of "sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, [or] sexual orientation or sexual identity . . . except for compelling practical purposes."

Marital status is not included, and there may be compelling reasons for the government to take one's gender or sexual orientation into account when one is seeking to adopt a child.

Resolution 35 further prohibits private discrimination "in private employment, housing, education, employment benefits, compensations and access to services provided to the general public." This provision, in the opinion of our nation's lawyers, does not impose any restrictions on the criteria private adoption agencies may apply when they are trying to find adoptive parents for children.

[Sanctaria]

This is unsuprising. The CoCR already forbids discrimination on these grounds, this is simply underscoring this.

Resolution 35, the Charter of Civil Rights, prohibits discrimination by governments on the grounds of "sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, [or] sexual orientation or sexual identity . . . except for compelling practical purposes."

Marital status is not included, and there may be compelling reasons for the government to take one's gender or sexual orientation into account when one is seeking to adopt a child.

Resolution 35 further prohibits private discrimination "in private employment, housing, education, employment benefits, compensations and access to services provided to the general public." This provision, in the opinion of our nation's lawyers, does not impose any restrictions on the criteria private adoption agencies may apply when they are trying to find adoptive parents for children.

I knew when writing that clause I would not have your nation's support, and nor would I want it - especially when such support would come at the detriment of single and LGB individuals across the NationStates multiverse.

This particular clause underscores the basic tenets of the CoCR and, further, while it does not echo its decision to add a compelling practical purpose for discriminating against, because I do not believe in such a situation ever existing, the clause does say what could "reasonable be construed to be discriminatory". I believe this serves a similar purpose to the compelling practical purpose provision in the CoCR, as horrible as that provision may be.

As for private adoption agencies, this proposal is not concerned with them. This proposal is concerned with intercountry adoption and does not permit private adoption agencies to carry out intercountry adoption since nations must appoint or create a state or semi-state agency to deal with these. Private or domestic adoption agencies may continue to use whatever regulations they see fit for domestic and internal adoption services.

It is possible the clause in question which sets forward that intercountry adoption services may only be provides by this National Adoption Board may be need to be re-written so this is more clear.

[Christian Democrats]

Resolution 35, the Charter of Civil Rights, prohibits discrimination by governments on the grounds of "sex, race, ethnicity, nationality, skin color, language, economic or cultural background, physical or mental disability or condition, religion or belief system, [or] sexual orientation or sexual identity . . . except for compelling practical purposes."

Marital status is not included, and there may be compelling reasons for the government to take one's gender or sexual orientation into account when one is seeking to adopt a child.

Resolution 35 further prohibits private discrimination "in private employment, housing, education, employment benefits, compensations and access to services provided to the general public." This provision, in the opinion of our nation's lawyers, does not impose any restrictions on the criteria private adoption agencies may apply when they are trying to find adoptive parents for children.

I knew when writing that clause I would not have your nation's support, and nor would I want it - especially when such support would come at the detriment of single and LGB individuals across the NationStates multiverse.

Adoption is about doing what's best for children. The rights of the child must take primacy.

As for private adoption agencies, this proposal is not concerned with them. This proposal is concerned with intercountry adoption and does not permit private adoption agencies to carry out intercountry adoption since nations must appoint or create a state or semi-state agency to deal with these.

I'm not sure why you think private adoption agencies are incapable of dealing with foreigners.

[Sanctaria]

Adoption is about doing what's best for children. The rights of the child must take primacy.

The welfare of the child in question is of paramount importance. That's why the clause also prevents them from being discriminated against.

I'm not sure why you think private adoption agencies are incapable of dealing with foreigners.

Nowhere did I put forth that notion. I find it simply better in terms of the regulation of intercountry adoption that everything be central and singular and, importantly, that the state has some sort of responsibility.

Ambassador, I will not be removing or substantially editing the clause you have a problem with. Nor will I be opening this draft to regulating a nation's internal adoption industry. Intercountry adoption, however, is an international and important issue, and I believe that ensuring the welfare of the child via state involvement, even it is limited, is important. As such having a National Adoption Board with government oversight seems like a responsible and efficient manner of conducting intercountry adoption.

[Christian Democrats]

Adoption is about doing what's best for children. The rights of the child must take primacy.

The welfare of the child in question is of paramount importance. That's why the clause also prevents them from being discriminated against.

Placing a child with a single person or a same-sex couple infringes on his right to have a female caregiver and a male caregiver.

[Sanctaria]

The welfare of the child in question is of paramount importance. That's why the clause also prevents them from being discriminated against.

Placing a child with a single person or a same-sex couple infringes on his right to have a female caregiver and a male caregiver.

There is no right to that in international law.

Ambassador, we're diametrically opposed on this issue. We're not going to agree. I'd rather not waste valuable drafting time on this with you.

[Sanctaria]

I've written a third draft. It is below and in the updated OP. I thank all the Ambassadors who have contributed to the debate thus far.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY

On Intercountry 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 individuals who wish to adopt and to nations experiencing difficulty with their internal rate of adoption,

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

HOPEFUL that the consolidation of these varied rules and regulations will break down barriers to intercountry adoption,

Hereby

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

i. child: an individual under the age of majority in both the birth country and the host country,
ii. prospective adopter: an individual who is seeking to adopt a child;

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:

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

CLARIFIES that any intercountry adoption must be conducted between National Adoption Boards;

CREATES the World Assembly Adoption Authority (WAAA) to establish and implement a 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;

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 certified adoption agencies for expenses incurred during the adoption process.

[Brilliant Equestria]

"The new draft resolves our objections and, as such, I can formally announce our full support. I would suggest perhaps changing the definition of prospective adopter to say 'party' instead of 'individual' - as some might construe that as giving preference to non-couples - but that's a minor quibble".

[Sanctaria]

"The new draft resolves our minor objections and, as such, I can formally announce our full approval. I would suggest perhaps changing the definition of prospective adopter to say 'party' instead of 'individual', as some might construe that as giving preference to non-couples but that's a minor quibble".

My thanks to the Ambassador, and we'll take that under consideration during our next redraft.

[Nolgaria]

"I have issues with the first definition of children as it states that child shall be defined as 'an individual under the age of majority in both the birth country and the host country.' Under this clause, if one nation's majority age is 18 years of age but another's is 12 years of age, if a 14 year old child was involved in an adoption, according to this resolution, they would not be included as children. My two suggestions are either,

1) Create a definition for child as an individual between birth and twenty-one years of age

2) Or stipulate that each National Adoption Board shall specificy what the age of majority is all exchanges must be worked around these agencies accordingly"

~Ambassador Vaska Markovic

[Sanctaria]

"I have issues with the first definition of children as it states that child shall be defined as 'an individual under the age of majority in both the birth country and the host country.' Under this clause, if one nation's majority age is 18 years of age but another's is 12 years of age, if a 14 year old child was involved in an adoption, according to this resolution, they would not be included as children. My two suggestions are either,

1) Create a definition for child as an individual between birth and twenty-one years of age

2) Or stipulate that each National Adoption Board shall specificy what the age of majority is all exchanges must be worked around these agencies accordingly"

~Ambassador Vaska Markovic

I don't see the problem the Ambassador is stipulating. If a child is under the age of majority in, say, his birth country, but not in the country where the prospective adopters live and where he would be living if adopted, then he cannot be adopted, as he wouldn't be a child in the country where he'd be living and legally resident of.

I don't feel comfortable using defined numerical standards.

[Brilliant Equestria]

1) Create a definition for child as an individual between birth and twenty-one years of age

"Previous discussions regarding a standardized international age of majority have not gone well. Most nations seem to set it at somewhere between 18 to 21 but even that would create the problem of an adult in one nation visiting another and suddenly being considered a child. Furthermore, it ignores nations with non-human citizens that mature faster or slower than humans as well as nations with lower levels of technological development where most might not even live to see 21.

It's a can of worms that doesn't need to be opened for this resolution and can only side-track the debate".

[Nolgaria]

"I have issues with the first definition of children as it states that child shall be defined as 'an individual under the age of majority in both the birth country and the host country.' Under this clause, if one nation's majority age is 18 years of age but another's is 12 years of age, if a 14 year old child was involved in an adoption, according to this resolution, they would not be included as children. My two suggestions are either,

1) Create a definition for child as an individual between birth and twenty-one years of age

2) Or stipulate that each National Adoption Board shall specificy what the age of majority is all exchanges must be worked around these agencies accordingly"

~Ambassador Vaska Markovic

I don't see the problem the Ambassador is stipulating. If a child is under the age of majority in, say, his birth country, but not in the country where the prospective adopters live and where he would be living if adopted, then he cannot be adopted, as he wouldn't be a child in the country where he'd be living and legally resident of.

I don't feel comfortable using defined numerical standards.

That better clarifies my question, ambassador. Also, I wish to withdraw my second suggestion as not every nation may feel comfortable in letting the board choose the majority age and such a decision should be left up to the general nation as a whole, to be decided through which ever venue they see fit. I have no other objections to this resolution.

[Sciongrad]

"Sciongrad is very glad to see that this issue is being addressed and offer our support to his Excellency of Sanctaria. However, we would be interested in the inclusion of a provision that addresses the issue of what's to be done if the WAAA or a National Adoption Board determines that the adoption may not be in the child's best welfare when the adoption is to take place after the transfer of the child to the receiving state. Provisions for ensuring temporary care by the WAAA (or at least having the WAAA coordinate such an arrangement) may be worthwhile.

Either way, Sciongrad remains very pleased with the draft thus far and we wish the Sanctarian delegation the best of luck."

[Sanctaria]

"Sciongrad is very glad to see that this issue is being addressed and offer our support to his Excellency of Sanctaria. However, we would be interested in the inclusion of a provision that addresses the issue of what's to be done if the WAAA or a National Adoption Board determines that the adoption may not be in the child's best welfare when the adoption is to take place after the transfer of the child to the receiving state. Provisions for ensuring temporary care by the WAAA (or at least having the WAAA coordinate such an arrangement) may be worthwhile.

Either way, Sciongrad remains very pleased with the draft thus far and we wish the Sanctarian delegation the best of luck."

I would not feel comfortable making such an addition to the proposal. I'm not aware of a situation in intercountry adoptions where the child is transferred before the adoption is finalised. Unless I am misunderstanding your comments. Once the child has been adopted, its welfare is under the purview of the system in the host country, or the child's new country, whatever you want to call it. I wouldn't suggest that WAAA or National Adoption Boards would have a role here.