How do you adopt a child in michigan

Adoption FAQs

Unsupported Browser Detected

The web Browser you are currently using is unsupported, and some features of this site may not work as intended. Please update to a modern browser such as Chrome, Firefox or Edge to experience all features Michigan.gov has to offer.

Supported Browsers

Google Chrome
Safari

Microsoft Edge
Firefox

Adoption FAQs

The original birth certificate is sealed at the time of an adoption. Releasing the original former certificate requires a court order from the court that holds the record of adoption.
The confidential intermediary program was designed to assist in search and contact if your parental rights were terminated after May 28, 1945 but before September 12, 1980.
If your parental rights were terminated before May 28, 1945 or after September 12, 1980, you may wish to talk to the court that finalized the child's adoption or the agency that handled the adoption to learn if they offer any service that may assist you.
The Central Adoption Registry allows one to change their statement at any time simply by completing a new form and sending it to the Central Adoption Registry.
It is important to remember that only the former parent and adult former sibling can register with the Central Adoption Registry.
Former parents may complete a Parent's Consent or Denial to Release Information to Adult Adoptee - DHS-1919 form.
An adult sibling may file either the Adult Former Sibling Statement to Release Information to Adult Adoptee - DHS-1917 form or the Release of Information to Adult Adoptee by Brother/Sister as Proxy for Deceased Parent - DHS-1918 form.
These forms are available by contacting the family division of circuit court, a child placing agency, local Department of Health and Human Services, the Central Adoption Registry, or by downloading the form from your computer.
The forms must be completed with as much of the child's information as possible and mailed to the Central Adoption Registry. (Note: the form found on this system cannot automatically be transferred.)
The Central Adoption Registry allows the birth parent, a former parent, adult birth sibling and an adult former sibling to register a statement. Only these family members can register with the Central Adoption Registry.
The Central Adoption Registry is a file of former parents and adult former sibling statements giving consent and denial to have information released about themselves should the adopted person be actively seeking this information from the court or agency that handled their adoption. The Registry is maintained by the Department of Human Services, Adoption Services Division, PO Box 30037, Lansing, MI 48909.
Former family members may wish to contact the court where the former mother's parental rights were terminated to ask if their records hold any information that might identify the court or agency where the child was placed. With that information then, the former family could make a request of the court or agency. It is not uncommon for former family members to contact a number of courts within a given area in the state to request if they hold the adoption record. Generally, the court that would hold the record of adoption is the Family Division of Circuit Court (formerly the probate court).
If you believe the adoption occurred in another state, you may wish to contact that state. Some individuals will also register on the International Soundex Reunion Registry.
The former parent and adult former sibling can obtain nonidentifying information from an adoption record. This information would be available from the court that finalized the adoption and the agency that handled the adoption, if an agency was involved.
In Michigan, the adoptive parent of a MINOR may receive nonidentifying information upon request for this information of the court or agency that handled the adoption.
You could check with the court and agency that handled your child's adoption to learn if there is any more current information available in their respective files. Sometimes, birth family members may ask the court or agency to place additional information in the adoption file.
You may also wish to discuss with the court whether the confidential intermediary program would be available to you as an avenue to gain additional information.
The confidential intermediary program may be available to the adoptive parents of a minor child. A petition would need to be filed with the court that finalized the adoption. For more information concerning this program and to learn if you are eligible to petition, you should contact the court where the adoption was finalized.
Information from an adoption record can be obtained from the court that finalized the adoption or the agency that handled the adoption.
As an adoptive parent of a minor child, you would be entitled to receive nonidentifying information from the adoption record.
Nonidentifying information is defined as: Date, time and place of birth of the adopted person including the hospital, city, county and state An account of the health, psychological and genetic history of the child, including an account of the child's prenatal care; mental condition at birth; any drug or medication taken by the child's mother during pregnancy; and subsequent medical, psychological, psychiatric, or dental examination and diagnosis; any psychological evaluation done when the child was under the jurisdiction of the court; any neglect or physical, sexual or emotional abuse suffered by the child; and a record of any immunizations and health care the child received while in foster care. An account of the health, psychological, and genetic history of the biological parents and other members of the child's family including any known hereditary condition or disease; the health of each parent at the child's birth, a summary of the findings of any medical, psychological, or psychiatric evaluation of each parent at the time of placement; and, if a parent is deceased, the cause of and the age at death. Description of the adoptee and the adoptee's birth family including:
- given first name of the adoptee at birth
- age and sex of siblings of adoptee
- adoptee's enrollment and performance in school, educational testing results and special education needs
- adoptee's racial, ethnic and religious background and a general description of birth parents including age
- account of adoptee's past and existing relationship with any relative, foster parent or other individual or facility with whom the adoptee had lived or visited on a regular basis. The account shall not include names and address of individuals.
- educational, occupational, professional, athletic or artistic achievement of the birth family
- circumstances of any court order terminating parental rights of birth parents
- length of time between termination of parental rights and child's placement
- status of termination, voluntary, or court ordered
- any information necessary to determine the child's eligibility for state or federal benefits including financial, medical or other assistance.
Any agency or court may supplement this information with appropriate additional nonidentifying information.
No. The Central Adoption Registry is a file of former parent and adult former sibling statements of consent or denial. The adopted person may wish to put something in their adoption record that indicates their intentions. Again, the adoption record would be maintained by the court that finalized the adoption and the agency that handled the adoption.
For those adoptions where the parental rights were terminated prior to May 28, 1945 or after September 12, 1980 a copy of the original certificate of birth may be made available to the adopted person providing there is no denial statement on file with the Central Adoption Registry. To obtain a copy of the live certificate of birth, the court or agency that provided the identifying information would release the proper paperwork to the adopted person who can then present the document to:
Michigan Department of Community Health
Division for Vital Records
201 Townsend Ave, 3rd Floor
Lansing, MI 48913
For more information about the Department of Community Health, including fees or ordering information, visit their website: www.michigan.gov/vitalrecords.
For those adoptions that occurred between May 28, 1945 and September 12, 1980, the release of the original birth certificate is contingent upon a court order.
The adoption law created the confidential intermediary program as a means for search. It is important for individuals who are interested in pursuing this program to contact the court directly to learn more about how their program works. The court would be the court holding the record of adoption.
The confidential intermediary program was designed to assist in search and contact for most adoptions. You may want to contact the court that finalized your adoption or even the agency that handled the adoptive placement to gain more specific information about this matter.
">
Identifying information is defined as:
- Name of each biological parent at the time of termination of parental rights
- Most recent name and address of each biological parent
- Names of biological siblings at the time of termination.
Nonidentifying information is defined as:
- Date, time and place of birth of the adopted person including the hospital, city, county and state.
- An account of the health, psychological and genetic history of the child, including an account of the child's prenatal care; mental condition at birth; any drug or medication taken by the child's mother during pregnancy; and subsequent medical, psychological, psychiatric, or dental examination and diagnosis; any psychological evaluation done when the child was under the jurisdiction of the court; any neglect or physical, sexual or emotional abuse suffered by the child; and a record of any immunizations and health care the child received while in foster care.
- An account of the health, psychological, and genetic history of the biological parents and other members of the child's family including any known hereditary condition or disease; the health of each parent at the child's birth, a summary of the findings of any medical, psychological, or psychiatric evaluation of each parent at the time of placement; and, if a parent is deceased, the cause of and the age at death.
- Description of the adoptee and the adoptee's birth family including:
- Any agency or court may supplement this information with appropriate additional nonidentifying information.
For the adult adoptee, information that can be released from an adoption record depends upon when parental rights were terminated:
- If parental rights were terminated prior to May 28, 1945 but after September 12, 1980 and there is no parental statement of denial found in the Central Adoption Registry, the adopted person would be entitled to receive identifying information.
- If parental rights were terminated after May 28, 1945 but before September 12, 1980, the identifying information can only be released about the birth parent who has filed a statement of consent or of the adult birth sibling who filed a statement of consent. If the birth parent is deceased, information about that birth parent can be released. If there is no statement found, the release of information is considered the same as if the parent had filed a statement of denial.
The birth parents, adult birth sibling, and the adoptive parents of a minor child would be able to receive non-identifying information.
The adoption law requires the child placing agency or court, upon receiving a written request for information from its records, to respond within 63 days after receiving a request for nonidentifying information and 28 days after the court or agency receives the clearance request form back from the Central Adoption Registry which was forwarded as a result of the court or agency receiving the written request from the adopted person. The adult adopted person would be entitled to receive nonidentifying information and possibly identifying information if certain factors are met.
In general, the adoption record would be pulled and if the request is from the adoptee for identifying information, the court or agency would contact the Central Adoption Registry to see if a former parent or an adult former sibling filed a statement giving consent or denial to have their information released. The Registry does not require a fee of the agencies or courts for this check. Once the agency or court receives a response back from the Central Adoption Registry, they can release appropriate information from an adoption record.
Requests from the former parents, adult former siblings, and the adoptive parents of a minor do not require the check with the Central Adoption Registry. In these cases, the adoption file would be pulled and, at a minimum, non-identifying information would be shared.
Most courts and agencies ask that all requests for information from an adoption record be placed in writing. The agency or court may require a fee for disclosing information from an adoption record. The adoption law indicates that this fee can be no more than $60.00.
A request for information should include as much information as possible. The child's complete name (this can be the birth name and/or the adoptive name), the child's date of birth, the name of the parents (the birth parents and/or the adoptive parents), and, if known, the court and/or agency that handled the adoption. The form FIA 1925, "Request by Adult Adoptee for Identifying Information" is available FOR THE ADOPTEE to use.
All adoption records have a court record of the adoption and there also may be an agency record. There is no one central location of adoption records. The court record of adoption is usually located in the Family Division of Circuit Court (formerly the probate court) in the county where the adoptive parents lived at the time of the adoption. Once the court is found, the court would be able to provide you with the name of the agency if an agency were involved.
The adopted person may also contact the Department of Community Health to request the name of the court that finalized the adoption. Requests can be sent by mail to:
Michigan Department of Community Health
Division for Vital Records
PO Box 30721
Lansing, MI 48909
In that request, the adopted person must submit a completed and signed birth application and include their birth name if they know it, complete adoptive name, their date of birth, and their adoptive parents' names, along with a check or money order made payable to the State of Michigan for $34.00 and a copy of their current government issued photo ID. The fee is associated with the release of the amended birth certificate (the one issued in the adoptive name) along with the court information. The applicant must specifically request “COURT INFO.”
For more information about Department of Community Health, including fees or ordering information and the link to download the birth application, check out their website: www. michigan.gov/vitalrecords.
In Michigan, the legal age is 18 years old.
Once the child reaches 18 years of age, s/he can contact the court that finalized the adoption or the agency that handled the adoptive placement to request information about his/her birth family. For further information on this topic, you may wish to visit the MDHHS site, Adoption Record Information
You can review Michigan’s adoption law, Chapter 710 of the MCL Probate Code of 1939 (Act 288) at the Michigan Legislature web site: www. legislature.mi.gov
Available non-identifying information that includes medical information regarding the child and the child’s former family is made available to the prospective adoptive parent(s). Non-identifying information requirements are outlined in the adoption statute, MCL 710.27
At the time the adoption was finalized, the original birth certificate (the certificate issued in the birth name of the child), is sealed and an amended birth certificate is issued in the adoptive name. Generally, the court or agency provides you with a copy of the amended birth certificate. If this did not occur, you may wish to contact the court or agency that handled the adoption to request information as to how you may now receive an amended birth certificate.
When a child is placed in an adoptive home there is usually a supervisory period before you go to court to finalize the adoption. You will have regular visits with your worker and he/she will be available to help with any problems that arise. It is in the best interest of you and the child that you contact your worker right away rather than wait until a problem escalates.
International adoption is a complicated endeavor involving the laws of the adoptee’s country, as well as federal and state laws in this country. In Michigan, licensed private child-placing agencies handle international adoptions. There are a few licensed adoption agencies in Michigan that only complete the family assessment (home study) and provide supervision on behalf of out-of-state organizations, which handle the actual adoptive placement. Because requirements for adoptive families vary considerably, depending on the nation involved, a family needs to consult with an experienced adoption agency that specializes in international adoptions. A list of agencies is online at www.michfed.org. The adoptive placement of a child from a foreign country is also subject to the approval of Michigan’s Interstate Compact Administrator located within the Department of Human Services. The provisions of the compact ensure that all applicable laws and policies are followed for an international adoption.
A family wishing to adopt a child from another state must have an approved family assessment (home study) before they can be considered for the adoptive placement of a specific child. Because of differing adoption laws among states, families should consult with a licensed child-placing agency or an attorney for information on Michigan’s requirements and out-of-state procedures before committing to adopt an out-of-state child. Interstate adoptive placements are subject to the provisions of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (MCLA 3.7111). The Compact procedures ensure that all applicable state laws and policies are followed when an interstate placement is made. The Department of Human Services administers the Interstate Compact provisions.
Yes, as of January 1, 1995. Parental consent adoption is when birth parents directly consent, in a court of law, to the adoption of their child by the prospective adoptive parent(s). These adoptions are referred to in the law as “direct placement” adoptions. They are facilitated by licensed private adoption agencies or by adoption attorneys. However, even when an adoption attorney is used to facilitate the adoption process, an approved adoptive family assessment (or “home study”) must be completed by a child-placing agency.
For a child to be eligible for adoption, his/her biological parent(s) rights must be terminated. The process of terminating both parents’ legal rights is very thorough and can be complicated and lengthy at times. Often there is a shortage of families who consider adopting a child with a history of being abused or neglected or with a physical, emotional, or medical condition.
Yes. There are many brothers and sisters waiting to be adopted and we encourage families to adopt siblings to maintain family bonds. Families sometimes adopt one child and decide later they would like to adopt more children.
No. A rented house or apartment is fine as long as there is adequate bedroom space per child, a safe play area and no health and/or fire hazards. Again, all other criteria must be met as well.
No. A single parent is perfectly acceptable if all other criteria are met and the parent is assessed as capable of meeting the needs of the child.
Agencies are most interested in a person(s) parenting ability and commitment to adoption. A person must be at least 18 years old to adopt and if legally married, both partners must be parties to adoption. Contact a licensed child-placing agency that does adoptions for more information.
The cost of adoption varies greatly and depends on the type of adoption. The costs typically associated with adopting a child who is a permanent state or court ward are far less than a direct placement or private agency ward adoption. These costs include court filing fees and medical and legal documentation necessary to complete the adoption. Many of these costs can be reimbursed through the state’s non-recurring expenses (NRE) program.
Costs associated with direct placement adoptions can include birth parent expenses and agency fees. Michigan has the Adoption Facilitator Clearinghouse, which maintains information about adoption agencies serving a particular county or counties. The Adoption Facilitator Clearinghouse can provide information about the actual costs adoptive parents incurred when adopting a direct placement child through a private adoption agency. To request this information (please note there may be a fee associated with this service) call 517-335-6075 or submit a written request to:
Michigan Department of Health and Human Services
Adoption Program Office
235 S. Grand Avenue, Ste. 514
P.O. Box 30037
Lansing, MI 48909
Every legal safeguard is taken to protect you and your adopted child. Prior to 1995, Michigan was one of a very few states that required a court termination of the birth parent’s rights before the child could be placed in a home for adoption. In 1995, changes in Michigan’s adoption law allowed for a temporary placement of a child with a prospective adoptive family immediately following birth, while legal proceedings were completed. The birth parent(s) can also make a direct placement of their child (i.e., the birth parent(s) personally select(s) the adopting parent(s) and consent(s) to adoption of their child by an unrelated individual or couple).
No. Michigan statute prohibits surrogate relationships.
The Family Division of the Circuit Court handles stepparent adoptions. The ex-spouse or putative father, or father who has acknowledged paternity can either consent to the adoption or if consent is not given, his/her parental rights may be terminated by the court if conditions, as outlined in the Adoption Code, are proven by clear and convincing evidence. Contact your local Family Court for specific requirements, procedures and forms.
Yes, but the family assessment must be completed by a licensed child-placing agency prior to a child being placed in an adoptive home.
There are a number of Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS) local offices and private child-placing agencies around the state that can work for or with you. If you are a foster parent, the agency you are currently working with may be able to conduct the family assessment.
The following sites may be of help to you when looking for an agency:
- Michigan Adoption Resource Exchange (MARE)
- Michigan Federation of Private Child and Family Agencies
- Office of Child and Adult Licensing (this MDHHS Office provides a listing of licensed adoption agencies)
If you are interested in adopting a child who is a permanent state or court ward, there is no fee for a family assessment conducted by MDHHS. A private child-placing agency will charge a fee for a family assessment in most cases. Since fees can vary greatly for direct placement and other private adoptions, it is important that you discuss fees with your adoption agency.
The family assessment may take from three to six months. The length of time may vary further depending on the availability of the parities involved and/or the essential documents needed.
The family assessment or “home study” generally includes a personal and social history of your current family life and past experiences, health and financial information, support systems, record clearances, references from three unrelated persons and other significant factors.
There are several types of adoptions. Some are private adoptions handled by an attorney or a private agency and others involve a state agency such as the Department of Health and Human Services. The most frequent adoptions are:
- Private agency ward adoptions
- Direct placements
- State and court ward adoptions
- Relative adoptions
- Stepparent adoptions
- Inter-country/interstate adoptions
For more information on stepparent or relative adoptions, please contact your local Circuit Court, Family Division. For other adoptions, you may contact a licensed child-placing agency.
Families and individuals interested in adoption must be approved through a family assessment (also known as the adoption home study) before a child can be placed in their home. The family assessment must be completed by a licensed child-placing agency. (Licensed child-placing agency is a private adoption agency or a local Department of Health and Human Services.

Michigan Foster Care and Adoption – AdoptUSKids

Thank you for considering adoption and foster care.

State contact information

For adoption:
MARE (Michigan Adoption Resource Exchange)
800-589-MARE (800-589-6273)
[email protected]

For foster care:
Foster Care Navigator Program
1-855-MICHKIDS (642-4543)

Foster and adoption licensing requirements

Here is a brief explanation of the different ways families and individuals help bring love and stability to the lives of children.

Foster care is meant to be temporary; adoption is meant to be permanent.
Because foster care is considered to be a temporary placement, it is not a good idea to become a foster parent with the expectation that you will always be able to adopt a child placed in your care. A foster parent is expected to work with the agency and birth parents in the hopes that the family will be reunited.
If parental rights are terminated, though, relatives and/or foster parents will be considered first as adoptive homes for the child.
There are children whose parental rights have already been terminated, and these children need adoptive families.
Once your licensing process is complete, you may start inquiring about children in whom your family is interested. Your adoption worker will share information about your family – including your family assessment – with the child’s worker. Usually, workers gather information on multiple families at the same time to find a family that best meets the needs of the child. Once the family has been chosen, the child’s worker will share more in-depth, detailed information with the family’s adoption worker. Usually called a child assessment, this report contains information such as how the child came into foster care, how long the child has been in care, how many placements the child has lived in, and any diagnoses the child may have. It is then up to the family to decide if they want to proceed with an adoptive placement.

Who can foster or adopt?

You do not have to be married to foster or adopt a child or children. Many children will thrive in a single parent home.
You do not need to own your own home. A rented home or apartment is fine, as long as there is adequate bedroom space per child. The home must be free from health and fire hazards and must have a safe play area for children.
You do not need to be rich to adopt or be a foster parent. Even if you receive some type of financial assistance, you are still eligible to provide foster care or adopt as long as you have resources to provide for your family.

Anyone applying to foster or adopt must meet the following qualifications:

Be at least 18 years of age
Complete a licensing application
Successfully complete background clearances for all adult household members
Provide medical statements for all household members
Have an environmental inspection (when applicable)
Provide three acceptable references
Pass on-site visits to the home by the licensing worker
Attend training pertinent to foster care issues

If you have a spouse or live-in-partner, they will also be required to participate in the home study process as well as attend the Grow training series (Grow culturally responsive relationships, Recognize children’s developmental needs and the impact of trauma, Obtain information and resources, Work in partnership with families to support healthy relationships with you.

For more information, the Michigan Adoption Resource Exchange (MARE) website provides answers to frequently asked questions.

Costs to foster and adopt

Adoption

Most private agencies in Michigan will complete your home assessment free of cost. There are some private agencies that will require a home assessment fee. Ask the agencies you contact if they have any upfront fees you should know of.

Once a family adopts a child from the foster care system in Michigan, the family must be reimbursed that fee by the agency for a Michigan child. If the family adopts a child from another state’s foster care system, that family may be reimbursed through that state’s nonrecurring adoption expenses. Also, if a child in foster care is eligible for a subsidy, then the adoptive family may be eligible for reimbursement of limited nonrecurring adoption-related costs. Most families are only responsible for court filing fees and the new birth certificates, which is approximately $200-250 per child.

Foster care

There is financial assistance available for those who provide foster care. Foster care payments are not meant to cover all expenses incurred in raising a child; rather, these payments are meant to help offset some of the cost. Foster parents are given a modest initial and semiannual clothing allowance as well as a holiday allowance for youth placed in the home. The amount paid is dependent on the needs of the child, not the family. The amount is set by the State agency responsible for the child’s care. Children in foster care are also eligible for dental, medical and vision coverage through Medicaid, daycare subsidies, free school meals, WIC, high school graduation and prom expenses and tuition assistance for older youth. Eligibility for these and many other supportive services for families caring for youth in foster care are not based on the foster parents’ income.

Agency contact and orientation information

Michigan has adoption navigators and foster care navigators to help prospective adoptive or foster families complete the approval process. Navigators are experienced adoptive or foster parents who have completed the home study process, gone through many hours of parent and professional staff training, and welcomed children to their families. Working with an adoption or foster navigator is a free, voluntary service provided by MARE and the Foster Care Navigator program, and families are not required to work with the adoption or foster care navigator program.

For questions about adoption navigators, contact MARE at 800-589-MARE (6273) or email [email protected].

For questions about foster care navigators, contact the Foster Care Navigator Program at 1-855-MICHKIDS (642-4543) or contact the navigator team for your region.

Adoption

Michigan Department of Health and Human Services offices do not provide adoption services. Therefore, you will need to identify a private agency that can provide the adoption services you require.

Contact the agency nearest to you for orientation and training information. Find a licensed agency near you on the MARE website.

Foster care

Every county has a local Department of Health & Human Services agency, and many counties have private agencies contracted with the State of Michigan to provide foster care services to families.

To obtain orientation information, please contact the agency nearest to you or go to the Foster Care Navigators Program for help finding an agency in your area.

Post-adoption support services

See a comprehensive list of post-adoption and guardianship support services and support groups available to families who live in Michigan.

Information on children

There are approximately 14,000 children in foster care in Michigan, and each year approximately 3,000 of these children will become legally free for adoption. On average, 300 children are waiting with no identified families. Will you be able to step up for Michigan’s children?

Additional resources

Please consult the Michigan Adoption Resource Exchange (MARE) for a comprehensive calendar of support group meetings, conferences, and training opportunities.

For more information, please contact the Michigan Adoption Resource Exchange (MARE) at 800-589-MARE (6273) or email [email protected].

Market Alternative in Adoption and Foster Care | Library

The experience of privatizing various elements of the adoption mechanism in two American states, for all its shortcomings, clearly indicates that the creation of competition in this area will eliminate the black market that flourishes there, and will also reduce the influence and financial rewards of various intermediaries.

Nearly one million children in the United States are victims of neglect or abuse each year. At any given time, approximately 581,000 children in the country are being fostered by foreign families, and more than 125,000 are candidates for adoption. Approximately 17% of them have been in foster care for more than 5 years, although this is considered a temporary measure (US Department of Health and Human Services 2001).

The average age of children in foster care is 10 years. Many of those who are older cannot even be given to someone else's family: 8% are in "group homes" for difficult teenagers, and another 10% are in child care facilities. Unfortunately, a significant number of children who spend a long time in foster care, during which they usually have to change several guardians, become criminals. A study in Rochester, New York found that 90% of teenagers who had to live in five or more foster families join the ranks of juvenile delinquents (US Department of Justice 1999). In addition, minorities are disproportionately represented among these children. Thus, blacks make up 39% of children in foster care and 42% of candidates for adoption, while their share in the total US population is 12.3%.

It is more difficult for older children from ethnic minorities to find foster parents. Nationwide, the waiting time for adoption for a healthy child ranges from one to seven years. The adoption of an average child in foster care (the average age of such children is 10. 3 years) takes from 4 months to a year and a half. Adopting a child from another country requires 6 to 18 months. A Michigan study found that adoption of black children was three times slower than that of white children (Barth 1997). Moreover, even after adoption, older children are more likely to return to state care. Thus, for children aged 3-5 years, the number of returned is 5%, and for children 12-14 years old - 17% (Donaldson 2000).

Some states are trying to improve the system of foster care and adoption, partly outsourcing these activities to private actors. At the same time, the goal is to use the potential of competition and incentives in this area. In this article, we describe and analyze innovative privatization schemes for these procedures in Kansas and Michigan. After that, we will offer options for market solutions to improve the situation in this area. Our goal is to improve the situation of children as much as possible, given the existing budgetary constraints.

Privatization in Kansas

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a class action lawsuit against the state of Kansas, alleging that the state's child welfare system is procrastinated and child supervision is inadequate. As part of a settlement agreement reached in 1993, the state began to privatize the child care system.

The state was divided into five districts, in each of which a private contractor was to be selected by tender to take over the functions of the foster care organization. At 19In 1997, three Kansas non-profit organizations received a monopoly on these functions in each county. Their duties included the selection of new homes for children, medical and other services necessary in such cases. The purpose of the division into districts was to provide an opportunity for foster care of children close to their own families, since the task of such education is to achieve family reunification if possible (if reunification is not desirable, the child usually becomes a candidate for adoption). For the entire period of the child's stay in foster care, a fixed payment was established. As of 19In 1999 it was $15,511 (each year the amount of payment is adjusted). The amount had to be determined by estimation, since the state system did not tie costs to the work performed. The contractor had to accept all children, but in especially difficult cases he could receive additional remuneration. The contracts were drawn up in such a way that the contractor's profit did not exceed 10% per child. At the same time, the state authorities undertook to compensate for the additional costs of the contractor if they exceeded 10%. According to one of the contractors, he began to work at a loss if the child was in foster care for more than 6 months.

It turned out that under the terms of the original contract, the costs of the provider as a whole were 65% higher than the established amount of payment. Accordingly, in July 2001, four years after privatization, the contracts were changed to a fixed monthly payment ranging from $1,958 to $2,200 depending on the area.

As a result of the ACLU suit, in October 1996 the adoption procedure was also privatized. The only bidder in the statewide tender was the Lutheran Social Services (LSS) of Kansas and Oklahoma. LSS and its 12 subcontractors were to provide adoption services for 1400-1600 children. Unlike foster care, in this case, the child does not have to be close to the first family, and therefore the work was entrusted to one company operating within the entire state. The nonprofit contractor received $13,556 for all services related to the adoption of one child, including child support. After one of the parents gave up parental rights, the child was placed in the care of an adoption service provider. This was one of the reasons for significant losses incurred by the contractor, since the necessary condition for the adoption of a child is the termination of the respective rights of both parents. While the legal process to grant the child the status of a candidate for adoption was going on - the course of which the contractor could not influence - he had to bear all the costs associated with his foster care. By the end of the two-year contract, LSS had suffered a loss of $5.5 million; Subcontractors also suffered significant financial losses (Mainstream 2001).

In July 2000, the state selected a new contractor, and a year later, the contract was renegotiated to a monthly fee of $2,101 instead of a flat fee. The contractor continued to bear all expenses for children returned to public care within 18 months of adoption. The change in payment scheme was partly the result of cost overruns for reasons beyond the contractor's control.

The new system has undoubtedly produced a number of positive results. The number of adoptions increased from 352 in the year before privatization to 546 in the first year after it; by 55%. Moreover, in the year before privatization, 43% of children were adopted within one year, and after it their number increased to 51-68%. During the first four years after privatization, only 2% of adopted children were returned to state care, while in the whole country this figure is 12%. Finally, after privatization, the administrative costs of foster care decreased from 18% to 8% of the total budget; total average daily expenditures for these purposes also fell overall (Legislative Division of Post Audit, State of Kansas 2001).

However, certain shortcomings should also be noted. As with many other privatization cases, it remains unclear whether the scheme has saved public funds. A study by the State Audit Office noted that the costs of foster care and adoption during the period when they were administered by the state are extremely difficult to determine (Legislative Division of Post Audit, State of Kansas 2001).

Privatization requires a shift from breakdown of expenditures by agency to breakdown by type of work performed; This system was pioneered by former Indianapolis Mayor Stephen Goldsmith. Within the framework of this system, direct or “disposable” costs are calculated for any type of state activity; the resulting figure is compared with the prices offered by private contractors. In the absence of such calculations, the government agency cannot determine whether there are savings in outsourcing these activities. Obviously, the costs of public and private structures for adoption can only be compared if there are the same measurement criteria. In the case of Kansas, all we know is that the actual costs were at least $125 million higher than projected. No data are available on the costs associated with improving the quality of services, nor on the cost-effectiveness of the scheme.

Before privatization, Kansas did not even have clear performance criteria that could serve as a model for private contractors. In fact, the state must first move to reporting by type of work and, on its basis, evaluate the effectiveness of the activities of its own bodies, and only after that analyze the volume and quality of these services. Based on the data obtained, the state authorities can decide how attractive offers of private contractors are. However, the Kansas authorities, under the sword of Damocles of the lawsuit, privatized child care, unable to understand whether the proposals of contractors allow to increase the effectiveness and profitability of these services. However, in any case, as a result of privatization, the state authorities are now more aware of the costs associated with adoption and foster care.

In addition, Kansas could reduce costs and improve service efficiency by providing more competition. So, only one company participated in the tender for a contract for adoption, and three companies participated in the tender for foster care. Obviously, the degree of competition in this case was limited, and therefore in both areas the monopoly of the state was replaced by the monopoly of private structures.

The advantage of a private monopoly over a state monopoly lies in the reduction of the organization's bureaucracy due to the need to optimize costs. However, the absence of competition hinders the efficient provision of services and leads to other well-known disadvantages of monopoly. One way to encourage competition is to allow public providers to bid against private contractors. This concept is called "managed competition"; it has proven effective in other areas (Blackstone, Hakim 1997).

It seems that in Kansas competition could have been more intense, and private monopoly could have been avoided. LSS had 12 subcontractors, and the current provider, the Kansas Children Service League, had six. These subcontractors could compete with each other statewide. Thus, it can be argued that there are a sufficient number of firms and children-candidates for adoption in the region in order to achieve effective competition and prevent monopoly.

In general, incentive contracts are designed to increase efficiency. However, when a significant portion of the cost arises for reasons beyond the provider's control, flat-fee contracts are ineffective. The period of time during which a child is in foster care and awaits adoption, and therefore a large part of the costs associated with this, depends on the courts. The provider, on the other hand, received a fixed amount, regardless of how long the child remained in foster care, or waited for the termination of the rights of the parents so that the adoption procedure could begin. To allow for these force majeure costs, a fixed monthly charge has been introduced. This contract change creates incentives for the contractor to keep the child in foster care for as long as possible. On the other hand, the previous terms of the contract facilitated the return of the child to the home as quickly as possible, with the hope that he would not return to care during those 12 months when he was taken care of by the foster care provider. Thus, any contract can cause unintended changes in the behavior of the provider.

Privatization is most effective when there is a single measurable outcome. For example, if we are talking about garbage collection, the result is obvious and easy to determine. In addition, there are many similar transactions in the market. As a result, the government can easily outsource garbage collection and even allow consumers to choose between public and private providers.

At the same time, privatization is not so successful when the number of required results increases and their level is determined by different measurement systems. Thus, the criteria for the quality of adoption services are the duration of the process, the proportion of "returns", as well as the characteristics of the adoptive family, its living conditions and environment. Naturally, these quality criteria differ in value, cannot be measured according to a single “scale”, and are non-additive. Hence the difficulties in comparing the effectiveness of this service in public and private execution, as well as monitoring the work of the contractor.

One important indicator of the feasibility of privatization is called the "phone book test". If alternative private adoption services exist in the region, privatization appears to be justified. The key to success here is increased competition; in this case, the emergence of a private monopoly cannot be considered predetermined. If only one company bids for the adoption contract, it can be assumed that the terms of the contract are perceived as unfavorable. Not surprisingly, this activity turned out to be unprofitable for LSS.

In this case, the state should organize a re-tender, but before that, clearly indicate the expected quality result and the expected starting price of services, determining the latter by estimating the costs by type of activity per child in adoption or foster care. Here you can use the mechanism of auctions in Holland, according to which the starting point is the cost of the state at a certain quality of services provided, and then the price is reduced. The tender is terminated when the number of its participants reaches a predetermined number. In the long term, the creation of a market with real competition allows you to improve the quality and optimize the price of the service. At the same time, civil servants should be given the opportunity to compete with firms that are ready to do work at the same level of costs as the state. The creation of a system of remuneration for quality work can also encourage state social workers to compete with private providers.

Michigan Privatization

In 1989, the Michigan State Legislature began developing measures to encourage private companies to compete with the government in providing adoption services. The goal was to speed up the procedure for returning the child to a stable family - through adoption, if reunification with parents is not possible. The state has established the Michigan Adoption Information Exchange System (MISIS), which distributes information about children who are candidates for adoption through public channels. The information includes a photograph, age and other demographic characteristics, the child's aptitudes, and whether the child has siblings who are also candidates for adoption (Craig et al. 1998). The state has licensed approximately 80 private adoption agencies.

Prior to 1992, agencies were paid according to actual costs or based on the average cost of arranging the adoption of one child. Larger agencies, able to accurately determine their spending per child, typically received $15,000-18,000. Smaller organizations that could not calculate their actual costs were paid only $3,900 per child, and as a result, they were probably unable to arrange a large number of adoptions. Such a system of "bonuses" for large agencies led to the fact that children stayed in foster care for a long time. Therefore, in the future, a different method of fixed payments was developed - depending on the difficulty of the task and the speed of completion of the adoption procedure. For example, the maximum amount ($10,000) is paid for the adoption of a child in an institution for "difficult" children. The smallest amount, $1,300, is paid to a private foster care agency for a child placed in foster care by another adoption agency. If the child is adopted within five months of becoming a candidate, the agency receives $8,600; after 7 months this amount drops to $3535 (Snell 2000).

Under a system in place since 1992, 80 licensed agencies that have contracts with the state's respective social service, the Office of Family Independence (ONS), can compete to adopt any child candidate. Each child is in the care of a specific foster care agency. If two or more adoption agencies find families willing to adopt the same child, it is up to the foster care agency in charge of the child to decide which adoptive parents to place the child in.

The results of the program adopted in 1992 look, to put it mildly, ambiguous. A comparison of the situation in 1991 and 1999 shows that the total number of adopted children, as well as the number of black and disabled children adopted, increased dramatically. The total number of adoptions increased by 83%. But at the same time, the number of candidates for adoption increased even more - by 116%. The number of adoptions of black children and children with disabilities, for whom it is often difficult to find adoptive parents, increased by 82 and 52%, respectively, but against the backdrop of an increase in the number of applicants, these data suggest that the situation in this regard has not improved. In terms of positive results, Michigan's adoption failure rate is 3.5%, compared to a national average of 12% (Snell 2000).

The advantages of the Michigan program are that it maximizes information about adoption candidates and that there are many companies that can compete with each other. Another plus is the fact that the ONS itself also has the right to engage in adoption, i.e. there is progress towards the optimal model of “managed competition”. In addition, while the court decides to grant the child the status of a candidate for adoption, the agencies do not have to pay for his stay in foster care.

Economists firmly believe that efficiency is achieved through market pricing. In this sense, it can be said that Michigan has taken a step in the right direction by using prices as incentives. However, the adoption rates set by the state are arbitrary: they do not reflect the opportunity cost of similar services provided by the state, nor the result of market forces. These rates take into account the duration of the adoption procedure and some criteria related to the characteristics of the children. But since the adoption is authorized by state authorities or the court, it seems that the private provider cannot significantly influence the length of the procedure. Not only that, the payment system is so complex and obscure that it actually weakens providers' incentives. Further, since providers cannot determine a priori how long an adoption process will take, it is difficult for them to decide what business to take on and how much effort to put into it.

ONS still organizes adoptions along with private agencies. In practice, it turns out that it deals with the most difficult cases. In this regard, it should be noted that in order to further increase competition and improve the quality of work, it would be worthwhile to fully implement the concept of "managed competition" - including additional remuneration of employees for exemplary performance of duties.

Michigan could make other improvements to the system. In particular, it remains unclear whether the involvement of private agencies is cheaper than the provision of relevant services by the state. A shift to reporting by type of work performed would allow comparisons between government spending and payments to private contractors. We propose to introduce such reporting to establish initial rates for private agencies. The amounts and time spent by the state on arranging the adoption of the main categories of candidate children could serve as a guideline in setting prices and standards for at least one year. At the same time, civil servants must be allowed to participate in the competition. Obviously, in this case, government departments will act in the same way as private providers and create a system of incentives for their employees.

At the end of the set period, ONS must adjust the rates for different categories of children in accordance with experience gained. Suppose, for example, that the adoption rate of children with disabilities is low: then for the next period of time, the fees set by the ONS for private agencies need to be increased. At the same time, if, at current rates, the demand for white children exceeds the number of applicants, as evidenced by the number of their adoptions, ONS should reduce the payment. This savings will free up funds to pay for the adoption of children from more "difficult" categories. Obviously, such a pricing mechanism will contribute to the “survival” of only efficient providers, both private and public. Naturally, it is necessary to make a reservation that the size of the prices set by the ONS is limited by the possibilities of the budget.

Conclusion

In this article, we have described and analyzed the pioneering adoption and foster care privatization programs operating in the states of Kansas and Michigan. Evaluation of the experience gained could serve as a guide for other states intending to improve their child care activities. Kansas has outsourced adoption to one provider and foster care to five providers in five boroughs, needlessly creating an undesirable private monopoly. Adoption in Michigan was more competitive, achieved through the wide dissemination of information about children and the involvement of 80 agencies in the competition. Kansas experimented with pricing, and Michigan established a differentiated payment system according to the difficulty of the adoption process and its speed.

Economic theory says that the welfare of society increases as the level of competition increases. The Michigan model, which combines complete information with a large number of providers, is more likely to provide an effective result. At the same time, the arbitrary non-market pricing scheme adopted in Michigan does not guarantee the optimal organization of adoption by contractors. Privatization has certainly improved the situation: both states now have a clearer picture of the cost to private providers of foster care and adoption, and the number of adopted children has increased. Thus, we are talking about significant achievements.

At the same time, there is a more direct way to reduce the time spent in foster care and improve the adoption process. The very fact that these services are being privatized in Kansas and Michigan contributes to the efficiency of transactions. In addition, above we have outlined recommendations for increasing competition that could and probably should be implemented, and in this regard it is worth paying attention to the “managed competition” model. But is there anything else that can be done to improve the situation? Dave Thomas - he was adopted at the age of one and a half months, and as an adult he founded the chain of eateries Wendy's - says: “I know firsthand how important it is for every child to have a home and a loving family. Without my family, I would not be where I am today” (Philadelphia Inquirer 2002).

Our analysis of the practice of public and private adoptions, as well as economic theory, suggests that there is a more direct way to reduce the time spent in foster care and improve the adoption process. We offer a market approach.

In practice, the adoption market works inefficiently. In particular, there is an excess demand for white children. As a result, families wishing to adopt a white child have to wait a long time or try to do so in another country. Often such families resort to the services of the black market, violating American or foreign laws in the process. At the same time, older, disabled and minority children awaiting adoption outnumber families willing to adopt them, resulting in long periods of foster care or institutional care. The reason for this failure is that there is no price adjustment mechanism that can eliminate the shortage or excess of demand. The emphasis is on improving the work of intermediaries—adoption agencies—rather than improving the efficiency of the transaction itself.

And here economic theory comes to the rescue again. Following the example of Michigan, the authorities of any state could provide maximum information about children who are candidates for adoption and their characteristics. Interested families could contact their local child support agency or any licensed private adoption agency. In the questionnaire, such families that have already received the right to adopt could indicate which particular child they want to adopt and the price they are willing to pay for it, or, conversely, how much they want to receive for the adoption of a particular child. Arranging for the adoption of children from “popular” categories, such as the smallest, is undoubtedly a profitable business, and the adoption of children from categories that are in less demand, such as older and disabled children, may require payments to adoptive parents.

The State must establish a fund that pools the income from the adoption of "popular" children, state appropriations for child support, and any federal government adoption payments. These funds will make it possible to pay for the adoption of children from "unpopular" categories. Since this will lead to a reduction in the period of stay of children in foster care, some additional funds will also be released.

As in any market, children will end up in those families that can afford to adopt them, are most willing to adopt them and are ready to pay the maximum amount for this. As a result, foster parents will be able to provide them with the best conditions. It is also likely that such a family will be more suitable for the child than one that adopts him under the current system - where parents who are first on the "waiting list" receive a child they do not know and in fact pay only a nominal price for it. In the case of children from less "popular" categories, the child will go to the family that will ask for the lowest payment for it. Again, this will mean that such a family wants this particular child, and is ready to make the greatest financial sacrifices for him. And most likely it is this family that will take better care of him. Finally, the painful process of waiting for adoption will be reduced for both the families concerned and the children.

The creation of such a market system would eliminate the black market that exists today, as well as reduce the influence and financial rewards of intermediaries such as lawyers and private adoption agencies, and thus free up additional resources to work with children whose adoption is difficult to organize. Naturally, the monitoring and supervision of the adoption process will be carried out by social workers from public and private agencies.

Economists argue that the efficiency of the market increases with the increase in the number of suppliers and consumers. In the field of adoption, we propose to organize the dissemination of relevant information throughout the country. Today, there are certain barriers to adopting a child from another state. As a result, there may be an excess of adoption candidates in some states and an excess demand in others. In addition, the "quality" of prospective adoptive parents may vary from state to state. There is no need for the child to remain within the state. Creating a nationwide adoption market will improve the “quality” of foster families, speed up the adoption process, and reduce state costs.

Markets ensure the efficient allocation and use of resources for virtually all goods and services. It may take new laws to create a market for adoption, but states and probably the federal government need to experiment with using competitive market mechanisms to improve care for children. If we discard the rhetoric about "selling children", there is no reason not to use the market for the benefit of our little compatriots.

Literature

Barth, R. P. (1997) "Effects of Age and Race on the Odds of Adoption versus Remaining in Long-Term Out-of-Home Care." Child Welfare 76(2) (March/April): 285-308.

Blackstone, E. A., and Hakim, S. (1997) "Private Ayes: A Tale of Four Cities. " American City & County 112(2) (February): PS4-PS12.

Craig, C.; Kulik, T.; James, T.; and Nielsen, S. (1998) "Blueprint for the Privatization of Child Welfare." Reason Public Policy Institute, Policy Study No. 248 (December).

Evan B. Donaldson Adoption Institute (2000) "Adoption in the U.S." (www.adoptioninstitute.org).

James Bell Associates (2001) "External Evaluation of the Kansas Child Wel- fare System: July 2000-March 2001." 3rd Quarterly Report. Arlington, Va. (9 August).

Legislative Division of Post Audit, State of Kansas (2001) "The State's Adoption and Foster Care Contracts: Reviewing Selected Financial and Service Issues." Topeka, Kansas (January).

Mainstream Inc. (2001) "Privatization of Adoption in Kansas: A Report to Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption." Topeka, Kansas (May).

Philadelphia Inquirer (2002) Obituary of Dave Thomas, 9 January: B7.

Snell L. (2000) "Child-Welfare Reform and the Role of Privatization." Reason Public Police Policy Institute, Policy Study No. 271 (October).

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (2001) "The AFCARS Report" (June).

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (1999) "Family Disruption and Delinquency." Juvenile Justice Bulletin (September).

First: A Market Alternative to Child Adoption and Foster Care // Cato Journal. Vol. 22 (Winter 2003). № 3.

Adoption of orphans and children left without parental care in the USA

CHILDREN LEFT WITHOUT PARENTAL CARE IN THE USA

The article considers one of the most priority forms of placement of orphans and children left without parental care in the United States of America - adoption; presents a historical and sociological analysis of the origin, development and formalization of the adoption procedure from colonial times to the present day; studied the features of the legal and ethical aspects of adoption in the United States.

Key words: adoption, orphans, children left without parental care, USA, legislation.

Adoption as a form of placement of orphans and children left without parental care is one of the highest priorities in all countries of the world. According to some data, in the USA in 1992 the total number of adopted children was 126,951, of which 53,525 lived with relatives or in families with a stepfather/stepmother [2, p. four]. Due to the lack of healthy white children under 7 years of age available for adoption, there is significant demand for international adoption in the US, especially from Russia, Romania, and China. If at 1998 their number was 157,741, then in 2000 it was already 18,477 [9, p. 201]. Among other countries that are actively developing the institution of international adoption, we can name France (3,777 adoptions annually), Canada (2,222), Germany (1,567). In Norway, Denmark, Holland, Israel, due to the almost complete absence of their own children left without parental care, a large proportion of adoptions falls on other countries [9, p. 201].

To understand the current adoption procedure in the United States, it is necessary to turn to its historical past, where it was seen as a secondary type of kinship care, which has been influenced by factors such as the evolution of the regulatory framework, socio-political upheavals, industrialization, urbanization, several waves of immigration , the protracted period of the Great Depression, the years of World War II, the change in sexual morality and the system of "double" standards in the second half of the twentieth century. All these events led to a change in attitudes towards children, the adoption of decentralist legislation, the standardization and professionalization of the practice of adopting children, the expansion of the concept of “adoptable child”, as well as the emergence of a social movement protesting against the concealment of the fact of adoption.

Despite the fact that American culture and way of life were closely connected with the traditions of England, the United States was able to develop its own attitude towards the institution of adoption. English common law did not recognize the adoption of non-native children until 1926, thus trying to protect the interests of natural heirs in the event of a division of property. The attitude of the public towards adoption was openly hostile and negative, associated with crime, the maintenance of "children's farms" (where adoptive parents received wages for raising illegitimate children), as well as the sale of orphans to childless couples through newspaper ads. In addition, the absence of legislation regulating adoption did not allow protecting the rights of the adoptive parents themselves from the claims and demands of the biological parents who demanded the return of the children. Unlike the British, the American colonists were less concerned about the problem of blood and family ties, therefore, initially, adoption was carried out by placing street children as apprentices in the families of citizens, which later became the basis for the widespread development of the foster family system in the United States.

However, in the XIX century. adoption as a way of placing orphans was not widely spread due to the fact that, as a rule, such children were placed in wealthy American families, whose members viewed them more as servants and housewives than as full members of the family. Gradually, by the middle of the 19th century, due to the growth of urbanization, huge flows of migrants, the development of industry and the strengthening of the role of wage labor, the proportion of the urban and rural poor increased. To eliminate the social consequences, public almshouses and private orphanages were established, which contributed to the growth in the number of adopted children, despite their harsh discipline, high infant mortality and poor conditions of detention.

One of the most influential institutions advocating for the placement of children in families was the Children's Aid Society of New York, founded in 1853 by the clergyman Charles Loring Brace, a graduate of the Yale Divinity Faculty, whose main idea was

the free placement of street children children from the streets of the city to foster families of farmers living in the western states of the country: Michigan, Ohio, Iowa, Indiana, Missouri, Kansas [11].

C 1900, a new stage began in the field of adoption, which was due to the growth of social service institutions for children, the improvement of the qualifications of social workers, the adoption of common standards, and the expansion of the role of the state in regulating this process.

The origin of the first US adoption laws in the US was the desire of middle-class farmers to increase the number of children in their families. At first, adoption was regulated by private legislative acts, which only made it legitimate, as, for example, when registering land transactions. The first general adoption statutes were passed in Mississippi (1846) and Texas (1850). Under the influence of domestic legislation, the proclamation of the equality of spouses in the family, the destruction of traditional paternalistic foundations, the reduction of the role of the husband and father in family affairs, the introduction of equal rights of parents to children, the transfer of responsibility for raising children to the mother led to the formation of a new attitude towards children, taking into account the “best interests » child. The new doctrine of child care was based on the following basic principles: young children and children in poor health were to be left in the care of the mother, and older boys were to be left with the father; the court had to take into account the emotional attachment of the child to the parents, and also take into account his opinion in the adoption, if he could give "reasonable arguments" [1].

An important milestone in the formation of American legislation regarding the adoption of orphans is the Massachusetts Act “An Act to Provide for the Adoption of Children“, adopted in 1851, which provided for the need for social services child and conducting a preliminary survey of the living conditions and moral character of potential adoptive parents before a final judgment is made. In addition, this law freed children from all legal obligations towards their natural parents, thus providing wide opportunities for adoption. In 1853, the state of Pennsylvania passed a similar law, and a quarter of a century later, 24 more states followed suit [6].

At the beginning of the 20th century Legislation to protect the rights and interests of children in the United States continued to develop rapidly. In 1912, The U.S. Children’s Bureau was established and soon became the leading public information agency on adoption matters. His responsibilities included the development of state standards for services dealing with the adoption of orphans and children left without parental care; management of state legislative bodies, uniting the efforts of social workers, researchers and public organizations in this area. In addition, the passage of the Minnesota Children's Code (The 1917 Children's Code of Minnesota, adopted in 1917, which became the model for state legislation for the next twenty years. Minnesota was the first state to require preliminary procedures regarding the assessment of appropriate housing, material and other conditions of adoptive parents who wish to adopt a child in a family. For this purpose, a special body was created, which was responsible for studying applications for adoption, provided the court with a written opinion on each case, and ensured temporary residence of children for six months in the home of the adopter.

At the beginning of the last century, the widespread practice of social workers was to keep the family “at all costs”, which significantly reduced the number of children subject to adoption and provoked the risk of child abuse. According to American researchers, before World War II, adoption in the United States was shrouded in secrecy, all documents were confidential and were closed not only to the public, but to all participants in the process: biological parents, adopted children and adoptive parents. In addition, relatives of an orphan enjoyed the privilege of the courts, while other categories of adoptive parents were criticized for fear of exploitation of the child.

In 1921, the Child Welfare League of America was formed and took an active part in the development of regulations for public and private services. Social workers carried out a lot of educational work among the population, promoted adoption, overcoming the prejudices that had developed over the years. To improve the efficiency of their activities, social services tried to take into account the physical, ethnic, racial, religious and intellectual characteristics of potential adoptive parents and orphans for adoption.0005

Danish first of greater resemblance to biological parents. However, in practice, adopted children were often discriminated against, did not have the same legal rights as biological children, the courts returned custody of children at the request of their biological parents, and children with developmental disabilities at that time were not subject to adoption at all [8] .

In 1929, during the Great Depression, American society experienced unprecedented levels of unemployment, homelessness, hunger and poverty, which served as a new impetus for the development and implementation of additional laws to protect families and children, one of which was the Social Security Act (Social security Act), adopted by President F. Roosevelt at 1935. Thus, by the end of 1937, 44 states had enacted new adoption legislation, amended existing laws, many of which provided for preliminary procedures by special social services before court hearings and the provision of probation to children temporarily living in families adoptive parents.

Despite the active development of legislation in the field of placement of orphans and children left without parental care, the existence of "white" spots was obvious. In this regard, social services noted numerous cases of violations: the implementation of illegal adoption, charging fees from adopters, ignoring the recommendations of social workers by participants in the adoption, increased risk factors for adopted children. In response to this at 1938 The Children's Social Services League of America published the first list of adoption criteria, which were grouped into three main groups and included safeguards for children, adopters, and the state.

Since mid-1940s due to demographic changes, the growth of divorces, single-parent families, children born out of wedlock, the active promotion of parenthood, motherhood and childhood by the media, the stigmatization of childless couples with an emphasis on their “abnormalities” due to the absence of children, the rapid development of new technologies in medicine and genetics has led to an unprecedented increase in the number of potential adoptive parents who want to adopt children. According to statistics, from 1937 to 1945 the number of annual adoptions tripled - from 16,000 to 50,000, a decade later this figure doubled and amounted to 93,000, reaching 142,000 children by 1965, of which about half were brought up in families of relatives [2, p. fourteen].

The war years, the massive migration of more than one million African Americans from the south to the northern and western parts of the country, the violation of their rights, the increase in the number of children of racial minorities born out of wedlock, led social workers to expand the concept of "adoptable child", including in him children with disabilities, African Americans, teenagers. At 1939 AD The New York State Charities Aid Association provides the first opportunity for African-American children to be adopted. In addition, in the post-war period from 1946 to 1953. For the first time, the practice of international adoption appeared, during which 5,814 orphans from Greece, Germany and Japan were adopted by American families. The second wave of adoptions falls on 1953-1962, the period of the end of the Korean War, when most of the adopted children came from Asian countries, mainly from China, and by 1965, interracial adoption became a kind of "little revolution" that reached its climax by 1971 and allowed children from national and racial minorities to be placed in families of white Americans [2, p. 16].

By 1969, 19,000 such children had been placed in families as a result of a joint effort between public and private social services dealing with adoption. However, due to the intensification of the movement of African Americans for equality of rights, independence and non-discrimination, the National Association of African American Social Workers began to oppose the practice of interracial adoption, preferring to place orphans in foster families than adoption to white Americans, despite its success [12] , thus reducing the rate of interracial adoptions from 1,569in 1971 to 831 in 1975 [4]. To overcome this situation, in 1994 Congress passed the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994, which prohibited social services from refusing potential adoptive parents to adopt children due to racial, national and religious discrimination [7, p. 53].

1970-1990 a new round begins in the practice of adoption of children in the United States of America, characterized by the openness of the adoption process, the emergence of a broad social movement for the rights of adopted children. From mid 1980s The open adoption process was characterized by the fact that the biological and adoptive parents openly interacted with each other and social services about the upcoming adoption

. According to statistics, in the period from 1988-1989. 55% of adoptive parents in the state of California took part in the upbringing of their adopted children along with their biological parents [7, p. 55]. Openness of adoption has its positive and negative sides. On the one hand, the absence of a "secret" does not lead to traumatization of the psyche of children, difficult experiences, violations of parent-child relations as a result of its disclosure. On the other hand, the constant contacts of an adopted child with biological parents break his relationship with the adoptive parents, affect his attachment to them. The search for a “golden mean” has led many states to develop alternative methods and technologies for working with all subjects of the adoption process. In the second half of 1990s seventeen states have allowed mediators, under the supervision of a court, to get acquainted with documents, obtain information about the place of residence of biological parents, and offer their services in organizing meetings with children to be adopted. Nineteen states have established official mutual registration of biological parents and adopted children, if the data match, social services inform both parties of a possible meeting. In the other six states, the right to use identifying information is possible only with the consent of the adopted child and the biological mother without passing

official registration [10]. Oregon, Tennessee, Delaware, Alabama, Kansas and Alaska provide children adopted in childhood with access to the original original documents, including the birth certificate [5].

Thus, based on the above, we can conclude that over the past two and a half centuries, the practice of adopting orphans and children left without parental care in the United States has undergone significant changes, starting with informal, spontaneous, not regulated by law , isolated cases before the formation of a legally formalized social institution in all fifty states with different jurisdictions. During this time, uniform standards governing the adoption process have been developed and put into practice, the categories of children subject to adoption have expanded, which, among others, now include children with disabilities, children from national and racial minorities, adolescents, children with HIV and AIDS. In addition, the qualifications of professional social workers have improved, a number of legislative acts regulating the adoption process have been adopted, and a list of rights and obligations of its subjects has been defined. There have been revolutionary changes in the perception of the very phenomenon of adoption in the direction of its openness, there are opportunities for the joint upbringing of children by biological and adoptive parents.

ii.

References

Acts and Resolves Passed by the General Court of Massachusetts, 1851, chap. 324.

Adoption in America. Historical perspectives / edited by Wayne Carp. US: University of Michigan Press, 2007.

Altstein H. & Simon R. J. Transracial Adoption: An Examination of an American Phenomenon // Journal of Social Welfare. 1977. No. 4.

Barth R. P. Adoption // Encyclopedia of Social Work. 19th ed. Washington, D.C.: National Association of Social Workers, 1995.

Benn A. State Opens Birth Records // Montgomery Advertiser. Aug. No. 2. 2000.

Carp E. W. Bastard Nation: Discovering Family Origins Through the Democratic Process. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 2003.

Carp E. W. Orphanages vs. Adoption: The Triumph of Biological Kinship, 1800-1933, in With Us Always: A History of Private Charity and Public Welfare, Donald T. Critchlow and Charles H. Parker, eds. Rowman & Littlefield, 1998.

CWLA, Adoption Resource Exchange of North America. New York: CWLA, 1968.

Healy L. M. International social work: professional action in an interdependent world / Lynne M. Healy: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Hollinger J.H. Aftermath of Adoption: Legal and Social Consequences, in Adoption Law and Practice, 1995 supp., ed. Hollinger et al. New York: Matthew Bender, 1995.

Holt M. I. The Orphan Trains: Placing Out in America. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1992.

12. Simon R. J., Altstein H. and Melli M. The Case for Transracial Adoption. Lanham, Md.: American University Press, 1994.

O. V. Besschetnova, Candidate of Sciences in Sociology, Associate Professor, Associate Professor.

Balashov Branch of the Saratov State University named after V.I. N. G. Chernyshevsky.

St. Karla Marksa, 29, Balashov, Saratov region, Russia, 412300.

E-mail: [email protected]

O. V Besschetnova

CHILD ADOPTION IN THE USA

The article dwells on the adoption as one of the most preferable form of child care in the USA.