As you can see here, as of 2010, it bought you the time (for what it is worth) and efforts (such as they may have been) of Thomas Difilipo. Note he’s the only person with any listed compensation-is JCICS a “one man show” of some kind?
This is from a 2010 disclosure made by JCICS-why do they not have something on file for 2011?
JCICS stands fro “Joint Council on International Children’s Services” -but what does this mean? What is JCICS “joint” with? What are these councils?
At the end of the day, it sounds like a pretentious and pompous name for a trade association for adoption agencies.
JCICS, like agencies such as EAC, IAG and AAC (often referred by FRUA as “the big three Russian adoption agencies”) has been running about like a beheaded chicken over the Russian ban on American adoptions. And, with about as much effectiveness. The agencies, by Russian law, have had to close down their Russian programs. There is nothing they, JCICS or Mr. Difilipo can do about the ban. The so-called “soft diplomacy” mentioned on the JCICS website, if it happened at all, was a waste of time and effort.
Instead of looking for ways to create a cartel of adoption agencies by banning independent adoptions, JCICS should have looked into ways of responding Russia’s concerns. These include means of checking on adopted children, getting appropriate penalties for adopted children, and deterring, if not outright eliminating the violation of certain countries’ laws on the despicable practice of photolisting.
JCICS did not do these things. Russia has banned adoptions by Americans. JCICS constituency, the adoption agencies, may well reconsider the need to belong to JCICS and Mr. Difilipo may be hard put to find a source for his salary.
It appears as though Russia wants to keep the adoption agreement in place for a year. This is, undoubtedly, to allow Russia to monitor Russian children in the United States.
Even though the agreement will remain in force, it does not, in any way, reverse the ban on the adoption of Russian children by Americans that came into force on January 1, 2013.
The ban is a reaction to many things, including the Magnitsky Act, improper practices of adoption agencies and advocacy groups, and lax treatment of parents who have abused children adopted from Russia.
Organizations serving as trade associations for adoption agencies, such as FRUA and JCICS have had no success whatsoever in lifting the ban or even obtaining information about its implications.
In March of 2013, Russia will begin the process of re-accrediting adoption agencies. This means that there is no such thing as “permanent” accreditation! All bets are off in March.
It wil be interesting to see how many former players remain eligible, and how many new agencies are allowed to work in Russia.
The Russian-American bilateral adoption agreement has been passed by the lower house of the Russian legislature, which is called the Duma.
Now, it goes for further review and debate in the upper house, which is called the Federation Council. The Federation Council does not reconvene until September of 2012.
Note that many laws are never even considered by the Federation Council. Also note that if any change enters the agreement, it must be sent back to the United States for approval.
If and when the agreement is cleared by the Federation Council, it must then be signed by President Putin.
Given controversies over issues such as the Ranch for Kids and photo listings of kids, it is not clear the remaining ratification steps will proceed quickly. Pay close attention to the fact that it took almost a year to the day to get it to the first step.
The final step is for the US and Russia to get together and try to work out how the agreement will be implemented. If it is true the Russians want powers of inspection of children and retroactive effect, this could be a while in coming.
Have a look. This is from the EAC blog.
It should not have been too very hard for EAC and Margaret Cole to know that Russia had an election in March.
But, then they made a guess. What guess? That the bilateral agreement on adoptions (Russian Duma bill 45441-6) “may” be ratified after that. Did they have details on that, or was it just an unlucky guess?
Why unlucky guess? Well, as is now about as well documented a fact as there is, the agreement not only hasn’t been ratified, but it seems that if ratification is going to happen at all, it is going to happen in the very distant future. We may have flying cars in fact before it passes.
This is bad news for EAC and some other agencies. It means they have to remain competitive when in fact what they would dearly love to have is a monopoly. Well the only monopoly they get is one with a Boardwalk.
Sorry Margaret Cole, better luck next time, but for now, you can add another “EPIC FAIL” to your list of accomplishments.
What follows below is a very intelligent commentary about the status of the ratification of the bilateral adoption agreement between the US and Russia-in contrast, of course, to propaganda from agencies who are now wary of their status in Russia due to apparent illegal dealings with Reece’s Rainbow, specifically the apparent illegal acquisition and distribution of photographs and medical files of children.
There are indications that about 6 licensed agencies have participated in these activities. It seems unlikely that Russia will rush to ratify an agreement in which these agencies continue to play any role whatsoever in Russian adoptions.
It stands to reason that the Duma may well demand that the “Reece’s Rainbow” agencies be banned or that the US enact-and enforce-strict laws against photo listing children from countries where the practice is illegal.
As discussed here, the US-Russian bilateral agreement’s ratification appears to be delayed, indefinitely, in the Russian Duma.
May, 23, 2012. U.S.-Russian Bilateral Adoption Agreement: Is No News Good News? The United States and Russia signed a bilateral agreement on international adoption last July. The Russian Duma (Parliament) needs to ratify the agreement before it can go into effect. As newly inaugurated President Vladmir Putin has now appointed his new cabinet, the Duma could consider this agreement as it gets down to business. But given Putin’s prior opposition to international adoption and the politics of U.S. -Russian relations in this U.S. presidential election year, we are not confident that the Duma will rapidly consider the agreement. Moreover, any changes demanded by the Duma to the agreement would have to be negotiated thereafter with the U.S. government.
Have a look. In January of 2012, EAC heard “rumors” that the Russian-US bilateral adoption agreement would be taken up in February.
This did not happen.
But take note of the comment about independent adoption. It is in the best interests of EAC and other members of the Russian adoption agency “cartel” for this to end. Why? It means more business for them, and, as the power of their cartel increases, so too does their ability to raise prices.
The truth of the matter is that the Russian Duma has deferred consideration of the agreement indefinitely. The agreement, now nearly a year old, will undoubtedly require modification. Secretary of State Clinton, featured prominently in EAC’s advertising, will not be Secretary of State even if Barack Obama is re-elected. Changes to the agreement would have to be negotiated with either a second Obama administration or an incoming Romney administration.
The earliest, then, that changes could be considered would be early 2013.
Recently, “licensed” Russian adoption agencies have had some serious problems. It appears that a number of them, such as About a Child (AAC), Christian World Adoption (CWA), Hand in Hand, Homestudy and Placement Services (HAPS), and The Small World Foundation of Missouri (SWAF) have come under some level of scrutiny. The motivation for this scrutiny appears to be the illegal use of photographs and medical records of children in Russian orphanages in conjunction with the Reece’s Rainbow organization.
It seems unrealistic to assume that Russia would “accept” agencies who have been involved in illegal activities there.
In any case, Margaret Cole’s prediction about the ratification date of the agreement is worth nothing more than a laugh now. One hopes that she did not rush to buy Facebook stock at $37.00 a share, thinking she had made the proverbial “killing” in the stock market.