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.
The Russian parliament (Duma) has decided to defer the ratification of the bilateral adoption agreement indefinitely. The agreement, Russian bill 45441-6 was signed in July of 2011.
Various reports indicated that it might be ratified at some point in 2012, but this seems very unlikely.
The Russian government is disappointed by lack of US action to prosecute abusers of children adopted from Russia. Ready examples come in the form of a horrific tale of death by immolation of a child in Nebraska and “intolerable” delays in the Cherokee, Georgia trial of accused child rapist, Michael Grismore.
As a result, the Russian government is pushing for broader powers to inspect Russian children in their adoptive US homes and possibly return children to Russia based on these inspections. Also, the Russian government has called for the extradition of those both accused and convicted of abusing children adopted from Russia.
The Russian government has noted that the agreement, as drafted will almost certainly require modifications before it could be ratified. Such modifications, will require the assent of the United States. The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs does not believe that the possibility of such assent even exist until after the US Presidential election in November 2012 and the formation of a new government in 2013.
In the interim, various Russian officials have called for a freeze on adoptions in order to apply pressure to the United States. There is a growing perception that the US components of the agreement were designed to favor certain adoption agencies. Some of these agencies are engaged in practices antithetical to the objectives of the Russian government. The Russian government, realizes that its partner in the agreement, the Department of State, lacks enforcement authority over US based agencies and therefore seeks to apply pressure to instill a modicum of self policing among said agencies.