NationStates

Sanctaria wrote:

Sciongrad wrote:"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.

OOC: I can't tell you how common of an occurrence this is, and so I'm fine if you choose not to incorporate my suggestion, but this is common enough in the real world to be addressed by the Hague Adoption Convention.

ETA: The relevant article is article 21.

Sciongrad wrote:

Sanctaria wrote: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.

OOC: I can't tell you how common of an occurrence this is, and so I'm fine if you choose not to incorporate my suggestion, but this is common enough in the real world to be addressed by the Hague Adoption Convention.

ETA: The relevant article is article 21.

I see. I don't believe such a thing to be very common, and if it were I believe that to be a failing with and in the system itself. I will consider the scenario during the next redraft of this proposal.

Couple quick questions, Would the standards set by the WAAA qualify as "minimal standards"? This wouldn't prevent a nation from having more strict and/or thorough regulations on the subject would it?

All in all though I'm liking this legislation. You got my support.

The Liberal States of Russia wrote:Couple quick questions, Would the standards set by the WAAA qualify as "minimal standards"? This wouldn't prevent a nation from having more strict and/or thorough regulations on the subject would it?

All in all though I'm liking this legislation. You got my support.

The purpose of the resolution is to have the exact same regulations across the board. No contradictory or additional regulations would be permitted, so no, I wouldn't consider the standards to be minimal.

I'm not entirely sure how to reflect this in the text other than to add the words "stringent" and "rigorous" in a couple of places. Writing out every regulation would be (a) time-consuming, (b) very legalistic, and (c) a waste of time because the character count would be so far exceeded it wouldn't be funny.

Sanctaria wrote:

The Liberal States of Russia wrote:Couple quick questions, Would the standards set by the WAAA qualify as "minimal standards"? This wouldn't prevent a nation from having more strict and/or thorough regulations on the subject would it?

All in all though I'm liking this legislation. You got my support.

The purpose of the resolution is to have the exact same regulations across the board. No contradictory or additional regulations would be permitted, so no, I wouldn't consider the standards to be minimal.

I'm not entirely sure how to reflect this in the text other than to add the words "stringent" and "rigorous" in a couple of places. Writing out every regulation would be (a) time-consuming, (b) very legalistic, and (c) a waste of time because the character count would be so far exceeded it wouldn't be funny.

Okay that makes sense. Just curious.

OOC: Before delving into the proposal, I'd like to ask if the author will deliberately ignore feedback and comments from non-WA nations (even if said players had other nations in the WA)?

IC: "Being called a "lobbyist" is downright insulting," Janis fumed, "when all I and my colleagues are trying to do is to keep the whole of WA from disappearing up its own arse." An aide stepped forward and whispered in her ear urgently. Janis gave her a glaring glance and then spoke up again. "Fine, to dress it up more diplomatically, we're here to keep some sanity in the debates."

More OOC: I will get to this with PPU eventually, once I figure out if they want to adopt children for eating or for enslaving integration purposes.

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Before delving into the proposal, I'd like to ask if the author will deliberately ignore feedback and comments from non-WA nations (even if said players had other nations in the WA)?

OOC: I don't think that's what he said. I think what Sanc meant was that he won't make any special concessions for people who aren't even in the WA.

IC: "Being called a "lobbyist" is downright insulting," Janis fumed, "when all I and my colleagues are trying to do is to keep the whole of WA from disappearing up its own arse." An aide stepped forward and whispered in her ear urgently. Janis gave her a glaring glance and then spoke up again. "Fine, to dress it up more diplomatically, we're here to keep some sanity in the debates."

"But... you are a lobbyist. By definition, that's what you are, your Excellency. By trying to persuade us ambassadors to draft legislation in such a way you may find agreeable from the outside is what lobbying is."

Tung adjusts his tie and stands up to address the first clause.

"Draica has a problem in particular with clause one."

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

'

"We are putting all adoption that happens between countries in the hands of the Government. There is room for corruption here. An easier solution would be to replace "clarifies" with "suggests". That way countries can flexibly ease around in their comfort zones and actually be comfortable with this legislation. So I would ask the member who wrote this to please consider our request in terms of wording and we'll be able to support this."

Sciongrad wrote:

Araraukar wrote:OOC: Before delving into the proposal, I'd like to ask if the author will deliberately ignore feedback and comments from non-WA nations (even if said players had other nations in the WA)?

OOC: I don't think that's what he said. I think what Sanc meant was that he won't make any special concessions for people who aren't even in the WA.

This is correct.

Draica wrote:"We are putting all adoption that happens between countries in the hands of the Government. There is room for corruption here. An easier solution would be to replace "clarifies" with "suggests". That way countries can flexibly ease around in their comfort zones and actually be comfortable with this legislation. So I would ask the member who wrote this to please consider our request in terms of wording and we'll be able to support this."

It is disappointing the Ambassador has a problem with this clause, but this clause is instrumental in ensuring this resolution's success. It is much more difficult to regulate intercountry adoption with a uniform set of codes if the number of adoption agency permitted to process such adoptions is very high. Mandating that only certain agencies can conduct intercountry adoption makes such regulation more manageable and less prone to failure. As such it is unlikely that clause will be removed.

Sanctaria wrote:

Sciongrad wrote:
OOC: I don't think that's what he said. I think what Sanc meant was that he won't make any special concessions for people who aren't even in the WA.

This is correct.

Draica wrote:"We are putting all adoption that happens between countries in the hands of the Government. There is room for corruption here. An easier solution would be to replace "clarifies" with "suggests". That way countries can flexibly ease around in their comfort zones and actually be comfortable with this legislation. So I would ask the member who wrote this to please consider our request in terms of wording and we'll be able to support this."

It is disappointing the Ambassador has a problem with this clause, but this clause is instrumental in ensuring this resolution's success. It is much more difficult to regulate intercountry adoption with a uniform set of codes if the number of adoption agency permitted to process such adoptions is very high. Mandating that only certain agencies can conduct intercountry adoption makes such regulation more manageable and less prone to failure. As such it is unlikely that clause will be removed.

"I thank the Ambassador for taking the time to respond to my inquiry. The Government having an unchecked control over the Intercountry adoption business indefinantly is not the way to go. I would atleast ask the Ambassador to add in a clause that requires the WAAA to do manual oversight every month of these adoption agencies. We also ask manual oversight be done over the WAAA to ensure it does it's job responsibly."

Draica wrote:"I thank the Ambassador for taking the time to respond to my inquiry. The Government having an unchecked control over the Intercountry adoption business indefinantly is not the way to go. I would atleast ask the Ambassador to add in a clause that requires the WAAA to do manual oversight every month of these adoption agencies. We also ask manual oversight be done over the WAAA to ensure it does it's job responsibly."

The WAAA will be staffed by gnomes as it is a WA agency. As such it is infallible and cannot do its job irresponsibly.

Sanctaria wrote:

Draica wrote:"I thank the Ambassador for taking the time to respond to my inquiry. The Government having an unchecked control over the Intercountry adoption business indefinantly is not the way to go. I would atleast ask the Ambassador to add in a clause that requires the WAAA to do manual oversight every month of these adoption agencies. We also ask manual oversight be done over the WAAA to ensure it does it's job responsibly."

The WAAA will be staffed by gnomes as it is a WA agency. As such it is infallible and cannot do its job irresponsibly.

"I find that hard to believe..I'm sure the gnomes can make mistakes. I do not trust Government blindly, Ambassador."

Draica wrote:

Sanctaria wrote:The WAAA will be staffed by gnomes as it is a WA agency. As such it is infallible and cannot do its job irresponsibly.

"I find that hard to believe..I'm sure the gnomes can make mistakes. I do not trust Government blindly, Ambassador."

OOC: For the purpose of preventing arguments over whether or not WA bureaucracy is reliable, which can't possibly be resolved because there will never be evidence supporting one side's claim over the other's, it's assumed that the gnomes are the image of integrity and rectitude. Otherwise, no one could ever incorporate any WA bureaucracy into their resolution without being overwhelmed by questions of efficiency.

Sciongrad wrote:

Draica wrote:

"I find that hard to believe..I'm sure the gnomes can make mistakes. I do not trust Government blindly, Ambassador."

OOC: For the purpose of preventing arguments over whether or not WA bureaucracy is reliable, which can't possibly be resolved because there will never be evidence supporting one side's claim over the other's, it's assumed that the gnomes are the image of integrity and rectitude.;

OOC: Remember, my character is speaking, not necessarily me.

Draft 4 has now been published.

Sanctaria wrote:

Sciongrad wrote:OOC: I don't think that's what he said. I think what Sanc meant was that he won't make any special concessions for people who aren't even in the WA.

This is correct.

OOC: But you will make them for WA members?

Araraukar wrote:

Sanctaria wrote:This is correct.

OOC: But you will make them for WA members?

OOC: I've answered this, I don't wish to derail my thread with any further discussion on it.

Sanctaria wrote:OOC: I've answered this, I don't wish to derail my thread with any further discussion on it.

OOC: Edit that post with link to said answer?

Sanctaria wrote:As is clear from the different drafts, I have taken on-board suggestions from both member states and observers.

So what you actually said was just IC hot air? Not being in the WA on the particular nation doesn't mean the player behind it couldn't give legit advice.

EDITing this post instead of adding a new one, to avoid threadjacking further.

As is clear from the different drafts, I have taken on-board suggestions from both member states and observers.

(OOC: comments delayed due to misplacing memory-stick. )

I don't need to be told you have comments on the way or when you're going to publish them. Just post them when you're good and ready to.

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;

"YES! YES! Full support!"

Sia Hedishi takes out her LGBT flag and waves it wildly in support.

"What are you doing?" Asks the head Hakii WA writer confused.

"Celebrating someone doing what you couldn't! Get back to work!"

This regulation seems rather unnecessary to me, but considering The Federation has most of these laws in place already, we will support it....

Warmest regards,

Sanctaria wrote:I don't need to be told you have comments on the way or when you're going to publish them. Just post them when you're good and ready to.

OOC: Okay, noted for future reference. As I'd previously forecast that I'd post comments sooner than this, it seemed polite to explain the delay.

_____________________________________________________________________________

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

“I’d turn this round, and stress the potential emphasis to children needing adoption rather than the advantage to people who want to adopt: “BELIEVING that intercountry adoption can be beneficial to nations experiencing difficulty with their internal rates of adoption, and thus to some children who need adoption,”.”

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

“I’d prefer “Noting” rather than “Frustrated with”, as a less IntFed-seeming choice of words here.”,

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

“I don’t see intercountry adoption as intrinsically a good thing in itself, only as potentially a good thing in that it can provide adoptive parents for some children who might otherwise go lacking in that respect, and would therefore prefer a ‘suitable’ change of wording here as well.”

Hereby

DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution, the following:
i. child: an individual under the age of majority in both the country of origin and the recipient country,
ii. prospective adopter: a party who is seeking to adopt a child;

“Hokay so far…”

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;

“What about nations within which adoption matters basically fall under the separate jurisdictions of their various political divisions rather than under that that of the national government itself, such as — for example, in the event of it re-joining this organisation — Bears Armed proper? Whatever national body already coordinates adoptions between the separate divisions within those nations could serve as your proposed National Adoption Board for the purposes of sub-clauses ‘i’ and ‘iii’ here, but it would make more sense — and probably be more acceptable constitutionally, too — for it to be those separate divisions’ own agencies that were assigned to fulfil sub-clause ‘ii’ instead…”


"Can we insert a “Strongly encourages member nations to allow intercountry adoption;” clause next, to help clarify that this point remains a matter for national decision rather than one about hwhich your proposed WA agency could impose a binding rule?”

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

“Hokay.”

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;

“Probably hokay, in practice anyhows, although giving any WA agency such absolute power grrrates a bit…”

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;

“However discriminating on the basis of species so that children aren’t adopted by people who don’t properly understand their differing psychological and physiological needs, adopted by members of communities that lack appropriately-trained medical personnel, or adopted into populations where they would be the only members of their own species around, would qualify as acceptable under that “compelling practical purpose” exemption though, hrright?
“And disallowing adoption on the basis of nationality hwhen the other nationality involved was an ‘enemy’ one within rrrecent history? Also hokay, I presume?”

“Ur’rmm, hwhat about restricting adoptions on the basis of religion, particularly in cases hwhoever gave the children concerned up for adoption on the first paw expressed a firm wish that those children be raised in their own faith? If the nations have to put those children up for intercountry adoption on the first paw then we would definitely want to see that form of discrimination allowed.”

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.

“Hokay.”



“Also, two more questions and one other aspect of the situation that I’d like to see covered _

“Question 1: If a member nation allows any intercountry adoption at all, does that mean (or could WAAA rule) that it must make every child within its jurisdiction who’s up for adoption available for intercountry adoption or (as we would prefer) could it still limit intercountry adoption to those specific cases where — for one reason or another — intra-country adoption isn’t possible?

“Question two: Wouldn’t the current draft’s combined requirements that any intercountry adoption take place through National Adoption Boards and that all NABs be members of WAAA mean that intercountry adoptions between member nations and non-members would effectively become illegal, even in cases where they might be in the best interests of the children concerned? Can we find a way to solve this problem, maybeso by allowing intercountry adoption in any case where the recipient nation’s relevant agency has rules for vetting potential parents that meet WAAA standards?

“And finally (at least for now), the other matter: Wouldn’t it be preferable for the subjects of intercountry adoption to be guaranteed what one might term a ‘Right of Return’, so that once they’re legally adult by the rules of both nations involved — and if those nations don’t automatically allow them duel nationality anyhows — they have a reasonable amount of time during which to choose which of those nations they would prefer to consider their homeland? And, to assist with this, wouldn’t it be nice if the subjects of intercountry adoption were legally guaranteed a reasonable level of instruction in the language and customs of their people of origin as well as in those of their adoptive parents?”

OOC: I understand you've done this for years, but it isn't until now I've realised how annoying and garish having everything in italics is.

Bears Armed wrote:

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

“I’d turn this round, and stress the potential emphasis to children needing adoption rather than the advantage to people who want to adopt:

Valid point, I'll consider it.

Bears Armed wrote:

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

“I’d prefer “Noting” rather than “Frustrated with”, as a less IntFed-seeming choice of words here.”,

IntFed uses IntFed language. Shocker. I'm not inclined to change the wording here.

Bears Armed wrote:

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

“I don’t see intercountry adoption as intrinsically a good thing in itself, only as potentially a good thing in that it can provide adoptive parents for some children who might otherwise go lacking in that respect, and would therefore prefer a ‘suitable’ change of wording here as well.”

Given that I do find intercountry adoption a good thing, I don't think changing this clause is going to happen either.

Bears Armed wrote:“What about nations within which adoption matters basically fall under the separate jurisdictions of their various political divisions rather than under that that of the national government itself, such as — for example, in the event of it re-joining this organisation — Bears Armed proper? Whatever national body already coordinates adoptions between the separate divisions within those nations could serve as your proposed National Adoption Board for the purposes of sub-clauses ‘i’ and ‘iii’ here, but it would make more sense — and probably be more acceptable constitutionally, too — for it to be those separate divisions’ own agencies that were assigned to fulfil sub-clause ‘ii’ instead…”

It's not my job to consider what would be acceptable constitutionally within your nation. There's 17,000 member states in the World Assembly, if we tried to pass resolutions that was acceptable constitutionally to every one, we'd never get anything done. If this is passed it'd be up to your nation to nominate a National Adoption Board and then assign all aforementioned duties to them. If you NAB has to have offices in the federated sub-divisions, nothing in this resolution stops that from happening.

Bears Armed wrote:"Can we insert a “Strongly encourages member nations to allow intercountry adoption;” clause next, to help clarify that this point remains a matter for national decision rather than one about hwhich your proposed WA agency could impose a binding rule?”

I wouldn't think this was a point that needed clarification, the text itself was already amended in this regard. I will take the addition of such a clause under advisement.

Bears Armed wrote:“However discriminating on the basis of species so that children aren’t adopted by people who don’t properly understand their differing psychological and physiological needs, adopted by members of communities that lack appropriately-trained medical personnel, or adopted into populations where they would be the only members of their own species around, would qualify as acceptable under that[/i] “compelling practical purpose” exemption though, hrright?
“And disallowing adoption on the basis of nationality hwhen the other nationality involved was an ‘enemy’ one within rrrecent history? Also hokay, I presume?”

“Ur’rmm, hwhat about restricting adoptions on the basis of religion, particularly in cases hwhoever gave the children concerned up for adoption on the first paw expressed a firm wish that those children be raised in their own faith? If the nations have to put those children up for intercountry adoption on the first paw then we would definitely want to see that form of discrimination allowed.”

I am not in a position to comment on individual cases that may come before the WAAA, nor am I able, due to text constraints, to go into vivid detail within the resolution on such matters. The list given in the resolution text is only an example. We can tell this because of the "e.g." that comes before it.

However I did add, much to my own chagrin, "compelling practical purpose". All which you've outlined there would seem, to me anyway, to be a compelling practical purpose not to allow that intercountry adoption. Putting a bear with a human, talking bear or not, doesn't seem like an ideal situation to me.

Bears Armed wrote:“Question 1: If a member nation allows any intercountry adoption at all, does that mean (or could WAAA rule) that it must make every child within its jurisdiction who’s up for adoption available for [/i] intercountry adoption or (as we would prefer) could it still limit intercountry adoption to those specific cases where — for one reason or another — intra-country adoption isn’t possible?

Intra-country adoption is not the purview of this draft. This covers intercountry adoption. Intracountry adoption is purely domestic and my delegation has no interest in heavily regulating domestic adoption at this time.

I can't imagine that WAAA would do so, but I will consider adding a clause stipulating that due deference must be given to the child and whether or not they wish to move home.

Bears Armed wrote:“Question two: Wouldn’t the current draft’s combined requirements that any intercountry adoption take place through National Adoption Boards and that all NABs be members of WAAA mean that intercountry adoptions between member nations and non-members would effectively become illegal, even in cases where they might be in the best interests of the children concerned? Can we find a way to solve this problem, maybeso by allowing intercountry adoption in any case where the recipient nation’s relevant agency has rules for vetting potential parents that meet WAAA standards?

I won't be amending the text in such a way. As I've said previously, limiting the agencies that can legally conduct intercountry adoptions makes it far easier an industry to regulate.

Further, I believe the text continiously makes reference to member nation states. I also will not introduce anything into the draft even hinting at non-member nations' adoption practices. WA resolutions can not affect them.

However, I will look to further emphasising within the resolution text that this applies to intercountry adoptions between WA member states.

Bears Armed wrote:“And finally (at least for now), the other matter: Wouldn’t it be preferable for the subjects of intercountry adoption to be guaranteed what one might term a ‘Right of Return’, so that once they’re legally adult by the rules of both nations involved — and if those nations don’t automatically allow them duel nationality anyhows — they have a reasonable amount of time during which to choose which of those nations they would prefer to consider their homeland? And, to assist with this, wouldn’t it be nice if the subjects of intercountry adoption were legally guaranteed a reasonable level of instruction in the language and customs of their people of origin as well as in those of their adoptive parents?”

This resolution covers the regulation of the intercountry adoption industry. What you suggest goes beyond the intended scope of this proposal. I am not going to circumvent member nations states citizenship rules in this proposal.